Even with Andromeda, Breath of the Wild and Horizon around, I've still been keeping a little eye out for Ghost Recon Wildlands. And after getting some time in with it over the weekend, I'm rather keen to go back to Bolivia.
I argued earlier this year that Wildlands should be treated more as a fun romp than a serious tactical affair, even though the difficulty options certainly allow you to go full Tom Clancy. Heather found the moment-to-moment action was satisfying enough, and the size and scale of the open-world was fairly impressive too.
'.Ghost Recon Wildlands seems innocuous at first glance. It is a passable open world shooter where cooperative play leads to exciting gunfights and silly vehicle stunts. But Wildland's core is far more insipid. It is propaganda. It is jingoism made playable, perpetuating the failed logic that all it takes to solve the world's woes is enough ammo..'
The Wildlands story, at least from what I've experienced with the preview and the full game, is completely forgettable. I started a campaign in full knowledge of that, however, and as long as you treat the game as a series of extended firefights, with breaks in between involving helicopters and bikes flying off cliffs, you'll probably be fine.
I can understand the criticism that Wildlands, and Ubisoft games like these, should strive for a little more though. A system akin to Shadow of Mordor's nemesis system would have been fascinating in pseudo-Bolivia, with the influence and power bases of various faction leaders rising and falling in response to your actions.
I'm treating Wildlands like a trashy action movie, a place where expectations are low and explosions are plenty. As a regular remarked in Heather's review, games can be fun without necessarily being good. And while I'm not ready to level that sort of judgement yet, I've enjoyed my time with Wildlands.
How are you finding Ghost Recon: Wildlands?