Should "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" Not Have The "Ghost Recon" Title?

[SERPENTINE]

Should "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" not have the "Ghost Recon" title?

Even though we don't know much about this game, I feel like it shouldn't have the title "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" because it's open world and doesn't seem to throw the same vibe out like it did with the original "Ghost Recon" (2001), GRAW 1 & 2 and even Future Soldier.

 

[motsm]

No it shouldn't, but the last one shouldn't have either. Nor should most reboots, or modern sequels to older games, but they will continue to milk franchise recognition for as long as they can.

 

[clamum]

Game looks awesome to me.

 

[futurefields]

So now games cant be open world without changing the name?

Whatever dude.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So now games cant be open world without changing the name?

Whatever dude.

Is that what you got from that? Sheesh...

Games often use a name just for the sake of name recognition. Companies are so afraid to make a new IP or use a new idea that they have to attach a name to a game that people know. They could have called this game anything and it would still be as impressive as it looked in the video. Yet they slapped the Ghost Recon name on it because it would get more people to look at it. To me it's kind of sad they have to do that. Just like I think it's sad companies think they have to release the same game year after year with a new skin because they're afraid nobody would buy a new game idea.

That said it is yet another modern combat type game to add to the growing list(Battlefield, CoD etc). I am getting really tired of them to be honest. The only thing that might save this for me is the open world aspect.

 

[futurefields]

How do you know they just slapped the Ghost Recon name on it?

Maybe it's a well thought out sequel? Metal Gear Solid wasn't open world before, but now it is. It's called evolution. Isn't change good? People hate on COD for being so samey.

 

[cmdrdredd]

How do you know they just slapped the Ghost Recon name on it?

Maybe it's a well thought out sequel? Metal Gear Solid wasn't open world before, but now it is. It's called evolution. Isn't change good? People hate on COD for being so samey.

MGS has a story and lore that expands from and continues game to game. Ghost Recon never really had that. It's based loosely around a special forces team but each game has it's own plot.

It's nothing to do with evolution here. It's about a game that isn't a sequel, prequel, or continuation of a previous game using a name that really wasn't necessary to use. Like I said they could have called it anything. I happen to feel like they are using the name as something of a brand recognition.

 

[motsm]

How do you know they just slapped the Ghost Recon name on it?

Maybe it's a well thought out sequel? Metal Gear Solid wasn't open world before, but now it is. It's called evolution. Isn't change good? People hate on COD for being so samey.

The two Advanced Warfighter games on PC were what I would consider an evolution, Wildlands just looks like a complete departure. So when essentially everything that originally defined the series is gone, there is no justification to me to continue using the title.

 

[thehotsung8701A]

As long as it doesn't require Uplay since it Tom Clancy, It all good.

But yeah should have call it Joint Operation 2

 

[Rakehellion]

I've never heard of this game. Great thread.

 

[Sulaco]

Meh.

Ghost Recon, and arguably any Tom Clancy tactical games from the late '90s early 2000s are dead.

Oh sure, the names will be slapped on them for brand recognition, but the actual gameplay style and approach will be nothing alike. Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six are perhaps the most obvious examples.
That doesn't mean the game will be bad. Rainbow Six Vegas was a great action/shooter, but not anything approaching R6.

Honestly, anyone who's actually looking for anything approaching the original Ghost Recon game's emphasis on realism and tactics is playing ArmA. It's just that simple. That's really the spiritual successor in every way, just on steroids.

 

[pontifex]

Is that what you got from that? Sheesh...

Games often use a name just for the sake of name recognition. Companies are so afraid to make a new IP or use a new idea that they have to attach a name to a game that people know. They could have called this game anything and it would still be as impressive as it looked in the video. Yet they slapped the Ghost Recon name on it because it would get more people to look at it. To me it's kind of sad they have to do that. Just like I think it's sad companies think they have to release the same game year after year with a new skin because they're afraid nobody would buy a new game idea.

That said it is yet another modern combat type game to add to the growing list(Battlefield, CoD etc). I am getting really tired of them to be honest. The only thing that might save this for me is the open world aspect.

Design a game from scratch and spend millions of dollars and HOPE it sells?

or

Reskin a game for cheap that you KNOW will sell millions?

Depends on if you're out to make money or not.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Design a game from scratch and spend millions of dollars and HOPE it sells?

or

Reskin a game for cheap that you KNOW will sell millions?

Depends on if you're out to make money or not.

Well that's putting it in ultra simple terms. It can go both ways though. Someone may see Ghost Recon and say "hey I remember those games. Awesome." And someone else says "I hated those games. Not buying this"