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

Review

Ghost Recon: Wildlands Review

  • First Released Mar 6, 2017
    released
  • Reviewed Mar 10, 2017
  • PS4
  • XONE
  • PC

Safety in numbers.

Ghost Recon: Wildlands is a squad based Tom Clancy game that plays by the numbers. It stays true to the series' Rainbow Six-inspired roots, emulating the cold and calculated nature of organized infiltration and coordinated stealth kills. Whether you're syncing shots with friends or an AI companion, there's gratification in taking down targets efficiently. Unfortunately, the adherence to this specific kind of gameplay gets lost and diluted in Wildlands’ vast expanse of Bolivia.

By Tom Clancy standards, Wildlands' story--a revenge tale disguised as a narco-state destabilization operation--is low hanging fruit. Worse yet, the narrative perpetuates the notion that a cartel is only worth taking seriously when one of your own has been tortured to death, ignoring the thousands of locals who've suffered similar fates.

It's easy to tell that Karen Bowman--your CIA field handler--has a personal vendetta against the Santa Blanca, the drug cartel that rules Bolivia. When you ultimately come face to face with El Sueno, the cartel's kingpin, you can spot the payoff a mile away. At the end, there's no poignant message or lesson regarding this latest Tom Clancy episode in American interventionism. El Sueno himself has the privilege of introducing his side of the story right when you launch Wildlands. His introductory monologue and his subsequent speeches justifying his twisted sense of morality sounds like the rationalizations of someone who grew up in a bedroom with posters of Michael Corleone and Walter White.

No Caption Provided
Gallery image 1Gallery image 2Gallery image 3Gallery image 4Gallery image 5Gallery image 6Gallery image 7Gallery image 8Gallery image 9Gallery image 10

The pursuit of a single lead that Karen provides conveniently results in a series of other clues and each one of those tip-offs blossoms into others. Enough successful missions eventually results in confrontations with underbosses and lieutenants who are less than six degrees away from El Sueno. Wildlands is as much about gathering information on your targets as it is about picking what leads to follow down their respective rabbit holes. With a keen eye (and enough luck), you can avoid having to complete every missions related to a given boss and eliminate them ahead of schedule.

As you travel from lead to lead, you're exposed to the various factions that pepper Bolivia. On your side are the rebels, known as the Kataris 26. Enforcing El Sueno's rule are the Unidad, Bolivia's military police. These groups add character to your surroundings and how intrusive they are with your mission goals depends on you. You can curry favor with the rebels and gain their support by completing side missions and marking valuable resources for them. And as long as you're flooring it in a vehicle, any Unidad you drive by will sit tight, rather than follow in pursuit.

Some of your intel will reveal locations of weapons to add to your collection, though amassing a stockpile of firearms is purely optional. Compared to the multitude of games where the acquisition of guns is a major selling point, Wildlands’ selection is serviceable. The problem is that you can easily complete the game with your initial load out. This is because you regularly earn skill upgrades by completing missions, and you gain access to the quintessential stealth weapon--the silenced sniper rifle--early on. There's little incentive to hunt for other weapons unless you're a gun nut or you enjoy the experience of mixing up different weapons.

Along with the obvious discretionary benefits of the aforementioned silenced sniper rifle, the drone--even before you've upgraded its capabilities--is an exceedingly helpful tool. It's the catalyst to Wildlands' mark-and-execute mechanic, the same feature that's been the hallmark of last few Tom Clancy games like Splinter Cell: Blacklist and Ghost Recon: Future Soldier.

For the fans who've been hooked on Ghost Recon for the advancing technologies--which has been integral with the series' brand--the lack of gadgetry in Wildlands will prove disappointing. The novel appeal of drones--particularly in Tom Clancy games--has long since expired. While you can upgrade it with a handful of offensive and diversionary capabilities, its default function as a target-marking device is all you need.

While the drone marks your targets, it's your squad's responsibility to pull off the kills. The need for coordination underscores the team-based appeal of Wildlands, which can be experienced with AI-controlled teammates or, preferably, with other players. When playing with skilled friends, there’s comfort in knowing that you’ll most likely be on the same page. Playing with AI has it’s own benefits, like being better bullet sponges when they’re out in the open healing you. The one puzzling omission to multiplayer is the ability to form a mixed squad of friends and AI; if you're playing only with one buddy, you're stuck as a pair. Even so, it's wholly amusing that the whole squad's ongoing situational story-driven banter persists even when you're just a duo.

Wildlands' most gratifying moments come from playing the ghost. It means having the patience to spend minutes surveying a stronghold from a distance and arming yourself with that visual information to confidently infiltrate the base. There's a rush in leaving the base quietly with the intel you're assigned to uncover or--even more challenging--the VIP you're sent to rescue. And it doesn't get any better than pulling off these stealthy missions on your first try.

Equally thrilling are the moments where you have little time to adapt to changing circumstances. When the best laid plans go wrong, when you've been spotted and a base is on high alert, you're treated to one of the few instances where your squadmates' moment-to-moment updates are actually useful. When a high value target is fleeing, your team will let you know. Suddenly, a foot pursuit ensues and you're left ignoring all the chaos and gunfire around you. The resulting car chases prolongs the excitement, unless you're lucky enough to grab the target right before he finds a getaway vehicle.

At the outset, its appears that Wildlands' strength is in its diverse mission types. For every assassination, there’s a capture or rescue assignment. Any given sortie might involve hacking, sabotaging, or even stealing a plane. You might even find yourself pulling off the ol' switcheroo with two similar looking trucks. It’s never a dull moment, at least for the first 20 or so hours. By the time you've experienced each of these kinds of objectives a handful of times, boredom starts to set in.

No Caption Provided
Gallery image 1Gallery image 2Gallery image 3Gallery image 4Gallery image 5Gallery image 6Gallery image 7Gallery image 8Gallery image 9Gallery image 10

This encroaching sense of monotony feels more apparent as the poorly written squad chatter starts to repeat itself. When your teammate complains about not being allowed to man the boat, it’s mildly amusing the first time, so you can imagine how annoying it would be hearing the same gripe the twentieth time. Even incorrect situational commentary, say when you’re alerted to a patrol chopper while you’re deep inside a mine stops being funny before long.

Ubisoft's reimaging of Bolivia is tailor made for goal-driven excursions beyond the story. Often times, it's photo realism is eye-catching, like when the sunlight glistens off a watery tire tracks. Other times, seeing nothing but jungle or an endless ridgeline of beige rocks brings out the blandness of some regions.

The mix of dense vegetation and barren mountains echo the environments of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, just less accommodating. Navigating your way down a rocky cliff on foot is as unpredictable as climbing one. Instead, you're left using vehicles as your most reliable means of traversal. Yet for a map that should be more off-road friendly, this interpretation of Bolivia often encourages you to keep to the beaten path, lest you wipeout after a sick cliff jump on a motorcycle.

One unsurprising benefit of the open environment are the myriad avenues for infiltration into any enemy stronghold. No matter how fortified a four-sided base is, there is always a backdoor, whether it's a broken fence and a convenient stack of boxes next to the outer wall. Finding and using these alternate entrances can be as satisfying as any frontal assault.

Despite the country's vastness, it's a mixed blessing that you don't need to visit every region to take down El Sueno. Whether you take the most direct route to the boss or you systematically cross off every underboss and lieutenant first, you'll confront a rogues gallery of diverse personalities, whether that's a social media savvy Santa Blanca evangelist or an American military ex-pat who found purpose in El Sueno's cause.

As only the second open world game in the Clancyverse, Ghost Recon: Wildlands is a middlingly safe tactical shooter and a slightly wasted opportunity given the ambitious scope of its seemingly boundless map. While its main strength is its mission diversity, it doesn’t take long to lose the motivation after reaching El Sueno's doorstep. Even with a foursome of highly trained friends, Wildlands eventually reveals its diminishing returns. The feeling of positive immediacy and dopamine hits begin to wane sooner than you expected from a game with such a large and diverse world.

Back To Top
The Good
Superb stealth gameplay
Emergent situations invite stimulating improvisation
Open environments create many infiltration opportunities
The Bad
Missions feel tiresome over time
Story lacks meaning
7
Good
About GameSpot's Reviews

About the Author

Miguel needed 40 hours on the PlayStation 4 version to take down El Sueno while also making time for numerous side quests. The PC and Xbox One versions were played for a couple hours as well. Review codes for all platforms were provided by Ubisoft.
327 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 spartanx169x
spartanx169x

The real question is how much is a 7 rated game worth to the average player? A 7 is at best a $20 value in my opinion. This is a game to be picked up when you don't have much to play and play with very low expectations and will only play thru one time and put it up to collect dust for eternity. Sad, but true.

Avatar image for ltjohnnyrico
LTJohnnyRico

@spartanx169x: Scores are for Kids - Games are subjective some like some don't. I think there is more than enough content to justify the price - if a Game only had say 10 hours of life id expect it to cost $20-30 but again that depends on replay value - I have already put well over 20 hours into Ghosts and me and the guys I play with are really enjoying it .. so for us its good value for money. I paid more than the price of this game to see a Broadway show .. i could only watch it once for the price and it certainly didn't last 10 hours !

Avatar image for Azernus
Azernus

@ltjohnnyrico: As someone who has played games for 25 years, scores are not for kids. If grammar is any indicator, you haven't been alive half that long. Every now and again a score is off. But after spending lots of money on lots of games over the years, I've come to understand a score is a good starting point for deciding if a purchase is a good decision or not.

Avatar image for ltjohnnyrico
LTJohnnyRico

@Azernus: My Kids are old enough to realize that scores mean very little ! The only way to be sure about anything is to experience it for yourself !

Avatar image for Azernus
Azernus

@ltjohnnyrico: Maybe your kids could teach you which words you capitalize and which you don't. Enjoy wasting your money.

Avatar image for ltjohnnyrico
LTJohnnyRico

@Azernus: I always try to experience things for myself its the only way to know for sure ! I teach my kids the same thing .. to go out there and try new things .. you can't rely on someone else to decide what you will and won't enjoy !

Avatar image for nyran125tk
nyran125tk

@spartanx169x: I actually dont think you can really judge a game at all, until you have personally played it for over 3-5 hours. I wouldnt pay any attention to any scores. Unless its like a 2 or a 5 or something. Anything over that, you personally might love it or completely hate it or something in between. Ive played over 1000 hours of ARMA 2 , just in the editor, making original ghost recon style missions. They gave that a 7 i think. It's one of my most played games.

Avatar image for ltjohnnyrico
LTJohnnyRico

@nyran125tk: Agreed ! You can't judge it until you have played it !

Avatar image for externalpower43
Externalpower43

@spartanx169x: There is nothing wrong with a 7. Gamespot gave one of my favorite games a 6.

Avatar image for mcstabstab
McStabStab

@externalpower43: you can't just post that and not say what your fav game is.

Avatar image for spartanx169x
spartanx169x

@externalpower43: I guess I wasn't clear in my main point. Score is less relevant as opposed to price paid. As I said to others below. what it boils down to is how much would the average player pay for this game. More specifically, how much would they pay and feel like they got their money's worth. In this instance, i played the beta for about 2hrs and was not impressed in the least. I think a 7 is about right If I had to score it. But what that equates to in dollar terms is what matters. for $20 i think would be content. for $15 I would be fully satisfied. For $10 , very happy. But nothing I've seen in playing or reading the review justifies spending more. But that is also because I play mostly solo. This game appears to be maybe worth $30 if you play on playing it a lot with friends.

Avatar image for FBohler
FBohler

Many people here bashing Ubisoft for their tired open world formula while praising BotW, which is a very very formulaic game, that just adds some little puzzles here and there to distract the player.

Avatar image for nyran125tk
nyran125tk

@FBohler: Theres plenty of critics, that have taken the Zelda fanboy hat off and realized its not a 10 after a few hours into it.

Avatar image for undercover30
undercover30

@FBohler: Unfortunately nostalgia clouds judgement in that case.

Avatar image for saturatedbutter
SaturatedButter

I have 28 hours in co-op and 14 hours in single player. I like this game. I want to keep playing it even if it's just with randos.

It doesn't deserve any higher than a 6/10 though. It's a terribly flawed game.

Avatar image for bookfan8780
bookfan8780

I have to agree with the rating. I've been playing it for a few days (several hours) and already the missions are monotonous. Granted, I'm doing single player non-co-op and don't intend to play with others, but I don't see myself playing it much longer.

Avatar image for Large_Soda
Large_Soda

Shitballs

Cock holster

And baby makes three

I've got eyes on a small group of tangos

Avatar image for p1p3dream
p1p3dream

@Large_Soda: Look at all these shiny buttons up here.

Avatar image for saturatedbutter
SaturatedButter

@Large_Soda: I think this is my first celebrity snatch and grab.

Avatar image for Mogan
Mogan

@Large_Soda: The writing and voice work in this game is really something special. : \

Avatar image for p1p3dream
p1p3dream

@Mogan: i feel like they handed out flash cards to a 7th grade english class and just had them take turns reading. The first time i heard the Voice Acting i was just dumb founded. Some of it is like 1990's quality when developers just had their friends mom come in and read the lines

Avatar image for ltjohnnyrico
LTJohnnyRico

Been playing this with friends all weekend and were having a right blast ! Its really good - especially on harder difficulties with the HUD off !

Also why is everybody getting hung up on a score ? if you like it you like it ... I really like it but the reviewer could have given any score they like for all I care ! Scores are just for kids !

Avatar image for rbogaert2208
RBogaert2208

@ltjohnnyrico: We never truelly enjoy what is right in front of us because we are constantly reviewing everyone's opinion. Not only with games. Just about everything... We need a score on everything. And than there is the pointless discussions of why the game is better than the other.

"You can let yourself influence by others but never ever stop being yourself. A review could help you decide whether or not it's worth giving it a try, give it a try. If you like it, buy it. Don't put a score on it. People who play the game should actually give the stars but no one ever does that or there are haters blowing it all up. Sigh"

Avatar image for skippert
skippert

@rbogaert2208: There are a couple of reviewers on youtube that avoid scores entirely and just break down the positives and negatives and whether the game is worth buying or not - I find those reviews a little more down my alley but I do come to IGN and Gamespot aswell to compare reviews. It would be a shame and a waste of money to go with gutfeeling before buying each game. You cant know if a game is worth buying unless you have some form or reference to decide from....

Avatar image for ltjohnnyrico
LTJohnnyRico

@rbogaert2208: well said! My advice to those people would be just to enjoy things .. im not asking people to agree with what I like as each to their own .. but all that hate .. whats tbe point? .. they miss what really matters .. the fun! .. and thats exactly what Gaming should be ! ... Fun!

Avatar image for spartanx169x
spartanx169x

@ltjohnnyrico: @rbogaert2208 As I said in an above comment, the real question is , how much is the game worth to the average player? that is what it really boils down to. so tell me you two, how much would you pay for this game?

Avatar image for ltjohnnyrico
LTJohnnyRico

@spartanx169x: I paid retail price for the deluxe edition and I wasn't disappointed, I have already put 20+ Hours into the Game and can imagine I will put 10x that into it .. so for me its good value for money !

Avatar image for rbogaert2208
RBogaert2208

@spartanx169x: If i would be interested i guess around 30$. I am not all excited by ubisoft. (lot's of fillup quests in my opinion) + i really love the single player games with focus on their story like (the last of us or now horizon zero dawn). But i stated my price. :)

Avatar image for scottyp360
scottyp360

@ltjohnnyrico: that's how it is. I feel like there's people that look at reviews just to argue about the score. I'm in the camp of if you like it you like it, if you don't you don't.

Don't know about anyone else but when I think about games I've played I don't rank them based on a score. I guess of I were to rank them it would be based on how much I enjoyed the game. Maybe something like: games I loved, games I liked, games in disliked.

Avatar image for spartanx169x
spartanx169x

@scottyp360: i rank them by the ratio of hrs played to cost paid. If I get that cost down to $1 per hr of gameplay thats a great game. $2 is so so, $3 is disappointment and $4 is a most of the time is a waste and a lot of regret.

Avatar image for scottyp360
scottyp360

@spartanx169x: interesting way to rate games. Cost and amount of hours played can definitely play a factor. In the past there have been games I've bought that I didn't play much for one reason or another (maybe I didn't like the game, maybe I was just too busy with another game) and I would almost feel guilty for not getting my money's worth

But for me I value enjoyment and overall experience over time played. I always bring up the last of us. I know for some the game was disappointing from both a gameplay and length standpoint but I enjoyed the hell out of the game and have replayed it a few times. Even removing the multiple playthroughs the game would still rank among one of my favorite games of all time. I loved the gameplay and story which resulted in an enjoyable, entertaining, and memorable experience.

I like long games as well, actually playing through Witcher 3 at the moment, but there are some games that are longer in length that feel more like a waste of time than time well spent.

Avatar image for legendaryh1tman
legendaryh1tman

@scottyp360: Yeah Ghost Recon definitely feels like a waste of time. Its long boring and lifeless. Even with friends we just get bored out our skull and look for broken glitches this game is covered with. Naturally its an open world and regardless if the open world is good or not. Open world games design and purpose is to make you put many ours into them.

But basing a score off of cost and time. Yeah nope. I've played wonderful games that were short and sweat. I also play wonderful games that were long and sweet. It varies based on the type of game, genre, and audience it attends to. So no on the idea you post I have to disagree. However I do say reviewers should state if the game is worth the price of entry.

Avatar image for ltjohnnyrico
LTJohnnyRico

@scottyp360: Exactly !

Avatar image for cherub1000
Cherub1000

@ltjohnnyrico: smart! Have you played much in single player? On the fence about picking this up but I love a solid coop title!

Avatar image for ltjohnnyrico
LTJohnnyRico

@cherub1000: played about 8 to 10s on single player (with AI Squad) its still a good experience but coop with friends is sublime

Avatar image for FelipeInside
FelipeInside

This game SHINES in Extreme Difficulty with friends in co-op. If you put those two together it's a gem.

Avatar image for lilc74gd
LilC74GD

I'd give it a 6 or 7. Not a Tom Clancy fan and never played any of the previous games. Thus is something different I chose to play. While Im enjoying it, I noticed its bugy, glitchy, and sometimes rediculous. The AI can throw the experience off and the game itself isn't much to look at.

Avatar image for millionsedge
Millionsedge

Ubisoft manages to take a great premise and mess it up. Seems to be their M.O. these days.

Avatar image for Gomtor
Gomtor

@millionsedge: The previous ghost recon was awesome. This type of games work best with strong story, linear type of missions. This feels more like a squad based far cry.

Avatar image for veryDERPY
veryDERPY

the bridie got shot out the sky and the dudes still sitting outside it...cmon

Avatar image for Mogan
Mogan

These comments alternate between suggesting some kind of conspiracy is afoot because the game scored too highly, and suggesting some kind of conspiracy is afoot because it scored too low. : p

Avatar image for Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

@Mogan: I think the conspiracy was to make people get so hooked on a number on a website. It won the battle long ago.

Avatar image for legendaryh1tman
legendaryh1tman

Wildlands was poorly created in some aspects. But its a start to something that could be special with future games or maybe updates. If they go back to their roots that is. Unfortunately previous Ghost Recon games implemented things far better. Fact.

Biggest Gripes are:

-Mostly Repetitive Missions(Different various locals help with the little variety of mission options though but still comes up repetitive unless playing with friends)

-Lack Luster Vehicle Controls mostly the flying vehicles with out various views and weapon reticles (Specialty ground vehicles like trophy trucks, dune buggies and dirt bikes feel great, The problem mostly is the flying vehicles and their lack of aim/views giving it a dated gameplay perspective and feel)

-Basic Squad Commands ( Done better in previous and other tactical shooters)

-Lack of Foliage Concealment when against enemy A.I. (Self explanatory)

-Lack of Clothing Attributes resulting in no camouflage concealment or Armor Attributes. (ARMOR only affected by skill points regardless the uniform worn, while the enemy Armor drastically differentiates their damage model)

-Frustrating single player moments with Teammate A.I.( Done a bit better in previous games ) (Return of Sync shot however is welcomed)

-Frustrating Clunky Cover system not always working (Certain objects and areas of any given location the soft cover system doesn't always work)

-Lack of Lean feature which is in previous Ghost Recon games ( Shoulder Lean...not the dance.....Is a feature mostly always available in tactical shooters including some previous Ghost Recon Games, so where is it?)

-Lack of Weapon Attachments for various weapons ( Where are my bipods for my Marksmen Rifles, Assault Riffles and LMGs at!?) (Where are my 4x zoom + Scopes for the LMGs) Any Scope can be equipped on them in real life and previous Ghost Recon game.

-Physics - The overall physics are just bad. Player animations are done far better in previous Ghost Recon games and were more authentic to military movements.

Other than that it's an ok game and preferably better with friends online. Highly recommend playing with friends. Or not. I make these gripes because I am a huge fan and want the best for Ghost Recon. I love my military games. For what it's worth this game has potential to be really huge (besides the map) maybe with updates fixing these issues or another entry like this with far better attention to detail and more mission variety making this something all Ghost Recon fans could enjoy in the future. But Ubisoft would need to go back to their roots and make this game more Military SIM like instead of arcade like. Seems the arcade like direction has obviously lowered their standards, obviously hurting their scores on metacritic. I look forward to the PVP, hopefully you keep out the spotting bullcrap but I doubt it. Could have sworn I seen them spotting an enemy in the 4 vs 4 pvp reveal. Oh well that's all I have to say on it for now. Will see if it gets better with future updates.

Avatar image for jega
Jega

@legendaryh1tman: Totally agree with you.

To me the arcade like feel was the biggest let down.

I remember when I was younger and was playing Operation Flashpoint = I spent hours just flying the apache chopper very low to the ground dodging the trees = it was hugely fun and satisfying. For me Wildlands has completely failed in that regard = ie making simple things really fun, challenging and ultimately satisfying in order to create a great gaming experience as a whole = ie driving, flying, shooting. To me the closest comparison to Wildlands is actually Just Cause which is a fun game but certainly not a tactical shooter.

And that is also the biggest issue the game has in my view similar to what you also indicated. I feel that they didnt really know what they wanted Wildlands to be. A fun world to mess around in? = then add destruction, some crazy gadgets, shooting while parachuting, other gimics like hanging at rope under a helicopter when infiltrate a base, etc. Or a serious tactical shooter? = then add a deep story with strong characters, more complex missions, more advanced gadgets like scopes that show the distance to target, more advanced mechanics to steer your teammates, bullets that dont travel in slow motion (= a classic sniper rifle bullet travels up to 1000m per second and not 300-400m as they have it in the game), add more advanced/complex AI, ultimately avoid the arcade like feel, etc. This confusion is the biggest issue in my opinion and why for me the score is around a 6 = fun but mediocre.

Additionally, I also believe they should have implemented a headquarter feature. In MGSV the aim to build and gear up the main base was a huge motivation of going back out to do missions even if it was repetitive at times.

For me, this games would have needed (a) an identity and (b) one more year of development after figuring out what the identity should have been.

Avatar image for artfull47
ArtFull47

@legendaryh1tman: Right on, same here. They gave the title to the wrong studio or something. I love military games and special forces stuff in general (documentary etc..) and we know it dosen't go down like this. I mean its a fun game and the open map is well done But really it's a Stealth/action game with a military dress. It's nothing authentic or belivable, Tom Clancy's games used to have that special feeling about it and it need to have a solid solo experience its a must. Seriously You should send youre text to Ubisoft Ghost recon dev team lol

Avatar image for modernguitarist
modernguitarist

I think this game deserves at least an 8. Im sure if this game was called Zelda: Wildlands it would be a masterpiece and an instant 9 or 10!

Avatar image for wexorian
wexorian

@modernguitarist: Still bitching about Good game are not we??

Avatar image for FBohler
FBohler

@modernguitarist: Or maybe Uncharted: Wildlands.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
Bread_or_Decide

@modernguitarist: u mad bro

Avatar image for modernguitarist
modernguitarist

@Bread_or_Decide: never brah!

Avatar image for endersdragon
endersdragon

@modernguitarist: If Nintendo made it with the same care and attention that goes into every Zelda game it would be worth a 10

Avatar image for wreckrob
wreckrob

negatives of your review sound pretty subjective. you don't seem to hold to them very strongly or even to what you are trying to convey.if there is anyone who has played this game and could clarify what he is getting at other than the story aspect how good is the actual game what is the gameplay like and do you recommend it?

Avatar image for Warlord_Irochi
Warlord_Irochi

@wreckrob: "negatives of your review sound pretty subjective"

Every Gamespot review is sujective. It's part of their review policy. They have always been pretty openly admitting it.

Avatar image for spartanx169x
spartanx169x

@Warlord_Irochi: "Every Gamespot review is subjective. It's part of their review policy. They have always been pretty openly admitting it." Truer words have never been spoken. lol Hence why they can't be taken to seriously.

Avatar image for wreckrob
wreckrob

@Warlord_Irochi: thats fine don't care much about the subjective nature of the review or the company's policy but do care when they are presented as persistent and part of the game only wanted clarification.

Avatar image for spartanx169x
spartanx169x

@wreckrob: If you want a decent review , I highly recommend GameInformer. they most of the time have pretty rounded reviews

Avatar image for livedreamplay
LiveDreamPlay

@wreckrob: I don't recommend it. It's your basic stealth game with nothing new or surprising, and with very repetitive missions. The guy that made this review and said that the missions feel tiresome over time was very polite about it. It's incredibly boring after your first 2-3 missions, and the lack of a good story makes it even worse. Wouldn't recommend it even to a stealth game fan....

Avatar image for wreckrob
wreckrob

@livedreamplay: thanks much for the response i'll probably be skipping this the issue i had with the review was the train of thought.he mentioned what he disliked but then jumped to other parts of the game without clarifying. which if you'd played the game wouldn't be hard to follow but, since i haven't i was confused on the negatives and was confused why the game got a 7.

Avatar image for bbq_R0ADK1LL
bbq_R0ADK1LL

Somebody needs to mod this map into MGS V.

Having played the open beta, the game is beautiful but I can see it getting old really fast. It's a fun game but it dances across the line between serious & silly in a way that just makes me think the game has an identity crisis. I didn't get a chance to try co-op but it's probably a lot more fun with some friends in small doses, I might still pick it up on sale at some point.

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands More Info

Follow
  • First Released Mar 6, 2017
    released
    • PC
    • PlayStation 4
    • Xbox One
    Facing an almighty enemy in a massive and hostile environment, the Ghosts will need to make critical moral choices and engage in tough battles to complete their mission – their grittiest and most dangerous operation to date.
    7.8
    Average Rating232 Rating(s)
    Please Sign In to rate Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands
    Developed by:
    Ubisoft Paris, Ubisoft
    Published by:
    Ubisoft
    Genre(s):
    Action, Adventure
    Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
    Mature
    Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Partial Nudity, Sexual Themes, Strong Language, Use of Drugs