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 Ghost Recon's identity as a tactical shooter has evaporated and been replaced by a confused patchwork of elements and mechanics from other, better games.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.

Gallery image 1Gallery image 2Gallery image 3Gallery image 4Gallery image 5Gallery image 6Gallery image 7Gallery image 8Gallery image 9Gallery image 10

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
Gallery image 1Gallery image 2Gallery image 3Gallery image 4Gallery image 5Gallery image 6Gallery image 7Gallery image 8Gallery image 9Gallery image 10

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.

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

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.
268 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 prince__vlad
prince__vlad

232

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By prince__vlad

They got a 4 in gamespot and they have the nerve to ask 60-70 USD for it. LOL What a bunch of morons. Nice going greedy French!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

7833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Surely Ubisoft knew this was rubbish and just released it to recoup lost funds. Seems odd as they had really been lifting their game of late with quality releases.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for brunod_f
brunod_f

326

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

I loved Wildlands (still play it to this day), and i was so looking forward to get this at launch, but i didn't. Got RDR2 instead (PC version) and it probably was the best thing i did. Breakpoint may be an alright game for fans like me, at best, but it definetely doesn't worth its full price.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5ed5ff7933d88
deactivated-5ed5ff7933d88

855

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Hang on...I'm getting conflicting reviews here. So is this like the first wildlands or not? I didn't mind the first wildlands...but this sounds like the division. Is this one of those games where you have to shoot a dude 10 times in the head with a "level 5" AR 15 but a "level 50" slingshot will kill him?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gunnyninja
GunnyNinja

665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@cjtopspin: This is not like Wildlands or the Division. This is a copycat game. More like MGSV and Destiny 2 had an ugly baby.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

7833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@cjtopspin: No i think you can headshot kill easy enough it is just the enemy AI are dumber t than house bricks for one.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for p1p3dream
p1p3dream

1529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Are we going to get Shark DLC? What is the roadmap to solve this?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for p1p3dream
p1p3dream

1529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

It doesn't even have any sharks, where are all the sharks.

2 • 
Avatar image for Dragerdeifrit
Dragerdeifrit

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dragerdeifrit

The review is way to generous, this game is an insulting disaster, when headshots being effective are listed as a positive then your know the reviwer is looking for a way to be a bit condecending towards the game lmao, Like when you fail a test at school and the techer says: Well, at least you wrote ur name right this time. XD XD XD

Upvote • 
Avatar image for soulfulDAGGER
soulfulDAGGER

1185

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 58

User Lists: 0

Edited By soulfulDAGGER

A "4" is a bit harsh, just to be harsh as a means to try to "send a message" to the devs, which is very inappropriate and unprofessional. This game is a solid 7, for immersion alone. If you are going into this game looking for a Witcher 3 RPG story mechanic, then you are playing the wrong game. It's a shoot, loot, and scoot shooter with emphasis on immersion. That which is has and then some. I've had no problems running this game, with server connectivity/coop/issues or any of the missions.

The game is not built around the "store"! Go around and explore instead of getting everything handed to you. You get currency as you explore/loot. You DO NOT need to buy any in-game currency! Anyone who thinks otherwise, especially a nationally syndicated game reviewer, should be ashamed. It's slanderous even. What game have you and reviewers like you been playing? Did you even play for more than an hour? This type of journalism is uncalled for, when the facts aren't given and/or are twisted around for purposes of casting a negative light.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

7833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@soulfulDAGGER: Come on it is unfinished and in a messy state with poor AI pathing and execution. Ubisoft would be well aware of this so perhaps a very low score such as this may get them to act and actually fix it for the better instead of releasing unfinished games to the public. It is odd for Ubisoft to screw up so badly though i wonder what happened during the production of this one. I decided to hold off and see if it gets fixed.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Dragerdeifrit
Dragerdeifrit

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By Dragerdeifrit

@soulfulDAGGER: Wrong, the simple fact that it costs $60 and it has microtransactions in it make make it 6-7, throw in the repetitive missions design, bugs, and recycled assets around the whole map…. and yeah… 4 is VERY generous. I'm very sorry you liked this game…. Also, its a reviewers job to send the "messege" to developers, aka.. give constructive criticism… Thats the whole point.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for bvurn
BVurn

1

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

Edited By BVurn

I will no longer rely on GameSpot for their opinion on games. It is sad to see how biased and pathetic this review really is. If I Had paid any attention to this review of BreakPoint I’d be missing out on a really awesome and fun experience. If you liked WildLands you will love this game. The open world experience in this game is as good as any game I’ve played as of late (Assassins Creed Origins, Assassins Creed Odyssey, GTA5, FarCry4, FarCry5 to name a few). The graphics are awesome. The world is lush with lots of variety. The character customization is cool. The ability to be in the same game with friends and be no where near each other in the world is cool. People are complaining about micro-transactions… boo-hoo… I haven’t even noticed them nor have I purchased anything using micro-transactions. Simply put… This game rocks. Shame on you GameSpot for misleading gamers. You’ve lost my respect as any type of reliable source for game reviews.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gunnyninja
GunnyNinja

665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@bvurn: "If you liked WildLands you will love this game."

I will no longer rely on you for your opinion of games...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

7833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@gunnyninja: I like Wildlands and i skipped this game lol. I think some time they may fix it though.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gunnyninja
GunnyNinja

665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@deviltaz35: It's embarrassing to connect this to Wildlands. It's not horrible, but it's just not as good. No real challenge.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Richardthe3rd
Richardthe3rd

3774

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Glad to see some reviewers have the stones to dump on Ubisoft for their trash, particularly what they've done to the Tom Clancy games.

I remember the days of Rogue Spear, the original Ghost Recon and Raven Shield, just before Ubisoft took over and made the entire series into the bullet-sponge "tacticool" bullshit it is now.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jackthereaperbanner
jackthereaperbanner

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 38

User Lists: 5

@Richardthe3rd: mate, you are funny, Raven Shield developer and published by 3 Ubisoft studios 😂🤣

But i agree with breakpoint is a not good game.🤣

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Richardthe3rd
Richardthe3rd

3774

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@jackthereaperbanner: Guess you're right, Raven Shield was the first one Ubisoft took over from Red Storm.

My mistake on that one but either way it was the last truly tactical R6 game before Ubisoft completely maimed it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5ed5ff7933d88
deactivated-5ed5ff7933d88

855

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@Richardthe3rd said:

@jackthereaperbanner: Guess you're right, Raven Shield was the first one Ubisoft took over from Red Storm.

My mistake on that one but either way it was the last truly tactical R6 game before Ubisoft completely maimed it.

This x1000. I miss those days of real tactical shooters. The first R6 was such a revelation and created an entire genre of thinking shooters....and then Ubi nuked it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20282

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

A 4 is way way to kind for the mess that is pretty much just a reskinned Wildlands with nothing new.

Ubisoft has gone from somewhat decent developer to be way worse than EA

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

7833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By DEVILTAZ35

@Jacanuk: Really this is the only bad game so far recently . What else has dropped them in your eyes?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Dragerdeifrit
Dragerdeifrit

636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@Jacanuk: Wrong, tons of new stuff, speacially in the miscrotransactions menu, don't you guys have wallets??? :)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hollywood1
hollywood1

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Jacanuk: easy there chief. Still a long way off of EA status. Assassins Creed is killing it. The Crew is killing it. Wildlands was pretty good and of course we shall see how Watch Dogs: Legion works out. But one rotten game doesn't tank a company with generally great content.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for jeankier
jeankier

1

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Is 's "hate" rating or gamespot's rating? 4/10 is non-sense and unfair.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for aross2004
aross2004

7616

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

@jeankier: Agreed. Should have been a 3. You know Ubi paid Gamespot off for that 4!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Crazy_sahara
Crazy_sahara

739

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Crazy_sahara

Omg a 4, wow 😮😯😦😧😲😔

Well it will be on Gamepass in no time now after that, hopefully it will be patched and the dlc worth buying.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for reviewlies
REVIEWLIES

81

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

good game kkkkkk

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Mozelleple112
Mozelleple112

7478

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

FInally a 4/10 score for a mediocre game. The gaming industry generally has a broken scale. Games are reviewed from 1-10, but anything below 5 is unplayable garbage. 6/10 is essentially a 1 star game, 7/10 is a 2 star game and 8/10 is a 3 star game, etc.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for knottoday
Knottoday

16

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Mozelleple112: I used to agree and think as you, but in reality, I think there just isn't a lot of 1 to 4 star games (on a 10 point scale). There's a clear difference between a 6 and an 8 game, and i think the same can be said between a 4 and a 6 game. Think about it school ratings, a a C- game/paper is pretty trash and not something i'd want to spend my time reading. Same thing with D+, D, D-, and F. I honestly don't know what constitutes a 1, 2, 3, or 4 score, but you are definitely right that under 5 is garbage. Even though the ratings exist for subpar games, to consumers like us, the differences once it reaches a certain low point are inconsequential: if its not worth our time, its not worth our time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hollywood1
hollywood1

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By hollywood1

@Mozelleple112: No, respectfully you're wrong. It's actually very hard to get high scores. Some gaming companies give out high scores like candy which in turn has softened their impact. 8-10 should be reserved for must buys and fantastic game changers (pun intended), God of War, Spider-Man, Red Dead Redemption etc. 1-3 is a hard pass. 4-5 is playable but will border on repetitive gameplay etc or really buggy. 6-7 is a fun game but wait for a sale as it feels a little incomplete or short or lacking slightly and like I said an 8-9 should be a "you should play this." A 10 should be exceedingly rare. Like a all round perfect gaming experience. NO faults and makes a profound impact, a game you never needed to add to your backlog because you crushed it and have potentially replayed it again and again.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Mozelleple112
Mozelleple112

7478

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

@hollywood1 said:

@Mozelleple112: No, respectfully you're wrong. It's actually very hard to get high scores. Some gaming companies give out high scores like candy which in turn has softened their impact. 8-10 should be reserved for must buys and fantastic game changers (pun intended), God of War, Spider-Man, Red Dead Redemption etc. 1-3 is a hard pass. 4-5 is playable but will border on repetitive gameplay etc or really buggy. 6-7 is a fun game but wait for a sale as it feels a little incomplete or short or lacking slightly and like I said an 8-9 should be a "you should play this." A 10 should be exceedingly rare. Like a all round perfect gaming experience. NO faults and makes a profound impact, a game you never needed to add to your backlog because you crushed it and have potentially replayed it again and again.

You say I'm wrong but you're essentially proving my point? Game reviewers give out high scores like candy. Everything is an 8 or a 9 out of 10. I even have a rule, if a game scores less than 80% on Metacritic I don't buy it, which would be ridiculous for any other kind of media.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for m4a5
m4a5

1802

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

"Headshots are impactful, allowing you to extinguish enemies in the blink of an eye"

This is what they got really right (when playing the beta). I hate playing a more realistic shooter and having the human enemies take forever to kill, even with headshots.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for 3partan341
3partan341

279

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Ubisoft has trashed the TomClancy series. It's all silly generic scifi trope trash. It used to be so authentic and unique.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=936020164

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gunnyninja
GunnyNinja

665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Trying feverishly to finish the game in one month. You know why...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for siarhei
siarhei

2937

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

@gunnyninja: outer worlds?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gunnyninja
GunnyNinja

665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By GunnyNinja

@siarhei: No, $15 for Uplay+ Outer Worlds won't cost me a dime. I have Gamepass.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for hollywood1
hollywood1

425

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@gunnyninja: yeah man, I'm stoked they're releasing it on Gamepass. I feel ya.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Jago-Vs-Fulgore
Jago-Vs-Fulgore

151

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

@gunnyninja: Red Dead?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mantastic42
Mantastic42

1

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Created an account to say bravo 👏 this review in my opinion is spot on . Why are games now a days built around Microtransactions??? Look at borderlands 3 this is a game that throws cosmetics and weapons at u in a ludicrous fashion and everyone is addicted to this even though it is an average shooter at best . COSMETIC features in games matter And are the carrot to keep casual gamers like myself going in online shooters and I refuse to pay more money for something that should be in the game I just bought .

Again well done gamespot!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

47286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Edited By mrbojangles25

It's really not that bad, though my tune might be different if I had actually paid full price instead of the 15 dollars I spent on this first month of Uplay (I probably won't continue my sub, btw, not enough of a catalogue there and I own every game I am interested in).

The open world is good looking, the setting--sort of a tech-centric utopia that's tipping over into a dystopia--is interesting, the fundamental gameplay is pretty solid.

Breakpoint is a good example of why less actually is more, and sometimes more is not always a good thing. They tried to cram about three or four genres in here and they did neither of them very well.

It just suffers from, as the review pointed out, an identity issue. To me the game would have been vastly better with:

-no skill system or unlocks. It's a shooter, should be based on player skill, not manufactured skill.

-no loot system. I mean, why? Because it worked for The Division, Borderlands, and Destiny? Just because you can doesn't mean you should, Ubisoft.

-needs better AI. You can literally take out an entire base by sitting in the corner, firing off shots to lure people in, and then camp and shoot every. single. enemy. as they walk in. Exception being maybe a sniper on the roof but whatever.

-more polished controls. Why do I have to hold down buttons? Can't I just tap a button? Why have a fairly passive cover system when you can just have a button to toggle it, this would eliminate any confusion over the ambiguous and ineffective cover system. Make the movements a bit crisper.

-Just get rid of the survival system. Falling down a steep hill was actually kind of cool the first time, I thought "Hey, there's some immersion and realism" but after the 100th time falling down a hill that frankly an elite spec ops soldier in peak physical form should be able to run down easily, well...it's the opposite of immersive and realistic. And you literally do not need anything else; no meals, no nothing. The 10% bonus XP is nice when you sit and read in camp but honestly I could do without it. The 30 seconds or so you spend to set up camp and craft some food then eat it really starts to pile up when it's non-essential.

-Get rid of microtransactions. Just stop already. Seriously. Stop being so greedy.

-Hire some good writers and voice actors. They don't have to be celebrities, but just a bit of talent would be kind of nice. And FFS quality check the spoken dialogue with the subtitles; seems like every other sentence is mismatched, my guy is like "I'll go over to the forest" and the subtitles are like "Ill run into the trees"

Like I said, it's not that bad. There's a lot to complain about but honestly it can be fun for an hour or so, just stealthing into bases or sniping from afar. If you play for more than that, however, the bugs and sub-par overall quality really get kind of annoying.

Damn, that was quite the rant. Sorry all.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for mynameisjake16
mynameisjake16

41

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@mrbojangles25: since i needed a game to fill the void till cod and outer worlds, i did the exact same thing with uplay+. prior, I played the beta which I thought movement, especially driving, was horrid. But I was surprised how much that tightened up with the final release. I read a bunch of reviews trashing pretty much every aspect of the game but when i started actually playing it, all the issues i read about aren't really bothering me. im pretty sure all items that can be bought with real money can be earned with in game currency. If you put it on a difficult setting and disable all the hand-holding ui elements, which they make easy to turn off, the game feels challenging and rewarding. im playing solo and having fun, but with friends, it would be much better. but that's not to say there's no enjoyable experience for solo players. and all this talk about how youre supposed to be a lone wolf ... i dont feel like im supposed to be alone. i flew in with a crew, and have found some survivors. seeing other players in the hub doesnt bother me since that's the only place i see them. the cutscenes aren't amazing (facial expressions are a bit lackluster), but they do add context to the story so it's ok. Id just say for anyone basing their opinion solely on the reviews theyre reading, you might be surprised when you actually play it.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for veryDERPY
veryDERPY

317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

very generous already. game is trash

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Theo1971
Theo1971

56

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

13820

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

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

47286

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

@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

56

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

59

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 • 

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Breakpoint

First Released Oct 1, 2019
released
  • PC
  • PlayStation 4
  • Stadia
  • Xbox One

A new open-world installment in the tactical shooter series is coming this fall.

4
Poor

Average Rating

63 Rating(s)

4.9

Developed by:

Published by:

Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
Mature
Blood, Intense Violence, Mild Sexual Themes, Strong Language