"Ghost Recon" is actually a highly influential classic IP. The first game was released in 2001, predating most well-known shooter series. Its author is the renowned Tom Clancy, the most famous writer of hard-core military techno-thriller novels. He also founded a game studio called Red Storm Entertainment, which created "Rainbow Six," a CQB tactical simulator. Ubisoft, then acting as a publisher, acquired both the game and the studio, establishing the classic "Ubisoft + Tom Clancy" combination.
In 2008, Ubisoft spent a huge sum to acquire the permanent naming rights for Tom Clancy's works. Therefore, even though Master Tang himself passed away in 2013, his name still lingers like a ghost in Ubisoft's military-themed games.
Of course, thanks to twenty years of peace and economic prosperity, keywords like military, hardcore, and tactical have significantly declined in various fields. When "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" was first released, some criticized the drones as too sci-fi. Nowadays, these multi-functional gadgets capable of reconnaissance, jamming, and lethal strikes have become unavoidable topics in modern warfare.
Few people know that the first Chinese translation of Tom Clancy's novels, "The Hunt for Red October," was led by military theorist Zhang Zhaozhong—yes, the very same Zhang Zhaozhong known as the "Director of the Strategic Foolyou Agency." Many theoretical concepts may seem comically sci-fi in the present, such as using smog to counter laser weapons, but on a longer timeline, these "bluffs" might actually be a form of planning and imagining the future.
Not only the drones in "Ghost Recon: Wildlands," but also the AR goggles featured in "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier" have now been equipped by US military forces. So, it's hard to say how far the "high-tech" warfare in "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" is from us; it might only be a matter of years.
Getting sidetracked, there isn't much to say about the next-gen upgrade itself—this is a 2017 Ubisoft game. Many aspects needed patching and improvement, except for the graphics. It can be stated responsibly that even though this is a nearly 10-year-old game, the visual performance of "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" still surpasses many mid-to-large scale titles today.
The main next-gen improvements this time are based on the 4K/60fps capability upgrades for consoles, so console players may feel the difference more deeply.
Despite this, during this trial, I rediscovered the stunning feeling of being on an all-expenses-paid trip to Bolivia from back then. Before this, few open-world games could truly create the same level of immersion through graphical technology. The aggressive lighting adjustments of the Anvil Next engine, combined with dynamic weather and complex, varied terrain, turned "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" into an authentic and massive special forces combat playground.
Although their development schedules were very close, "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" and "Assassin's Creed: Origins" offered two vastly different approaches to visual tuning. Compared to the latter's sunny brightness, "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" features much more "modern" lighting. Rather than prioritizing readability and information clarity, "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" clearly emphasizes atmospheric visuals in low-light or high-intensity light environments.
Remember to start the "Predator" crossover mission tonight.
You may have noticed this phenomenon in recent "Assassin's Creed" titles: developers no longer rely on character self-illumination but instead use scene and environment lighting during level design. This certainly leads to some scenes being "pitch black or overly bright," but in terms of actual lighting performance, these sacrifices are entirely worth it.
In my opinion, this more aggressive approach to lighting began with "Ghost Recon: Wildlands." In some extreme lighting conditions, its visuals are even more stylized than its sequel, "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint." For instance, my personal fantasy of a special forces operator involves a pitch-black rainy night, a ghillie suit blending into the dense forest, a glimpse of eyes hidden in the shadows, and a suppressed gun barrel wet from rain but occasionally reflecting the cold moonlight—
This was already achieved at the beginning of the newly added "Last Rites" mission.
In fact, to this day, you still cannot find a better special forces role-playing simulator than "Ghost Recon: Wildlands."
It includes elements reminiscent of "Behind Enemy Lines." You can engage in mobile warfare in the mountains at dusk, launch frontal assaults on Joint Task Force camps in the hot noon sun; you can sneak in cautiously wearing a ghillie suit, or just wear a tactical vest and call in rebels to spray and pray. The game provides countless tactical equipment options, allowing you to achieve your wildest special forces fashion fantasies in the coolest, most immersive ways possible, across different weather conditions, times of day, and locations.
Perhaps only its sequel, "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint," can compete with it, and even then, they are quite evenly matched. At least in terms of the map's human ecology and narrative presentation, many players actually prefer the predecessor.
Not long ago, I discussed the topic of open-world games with some colleagues in the editorial department.
While debating how to make open-world games more enjoyable, I raised a point: the open world itself can hardly be considered a gameplay mechanic. Even if it is, it's an extremely unpolished and lackluster one. Any other gameplay element becomes more concentrated once the open-world aspect is removed—not necessarily more fun, but certainly more refined, distinctive, and clear about what you're playing.
So, is the open world completely useless? I don't think so. On the contrary, the open world symbolizes an ultimate form of gaming: simulating Everythinggj to make players feel like they are in a realistic, immersive world. Throughout this process, the open world always functions as a technical benchmark in video games—a technical benchmark that is both the starting point and the endpoint of open-world games.
When we hear about commonplace features like day-night cycles, weather changes, and procedurally generated large maps, we should also remember that Todd Howard merely saying "It just works" (or implying the mountain is there) was enough to make the E3 audience erupt. And indeed, when you finish another story, resolve another encounter, and complete another linear game, a non-open world disappears—but the open world remains. It may lack design, be bland, or lack charm, but at least it's still there.
You might wonder why everyone online claims to hate open-world games, yet they still sell well, and once sold very well. The answer might not be that complex. Take "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" as an example: if I simply want to experience what it feels like to be a special forces operator violently cracking down on drug lords in the Third World, wanting to control a character wearing cool tactical gear and performing various tactical maneuvers in mountains and jungles—what should I play?
In reality, you don't need to be so specific. Even if your needs are just a vague subset of the above, you can choose to buy "Ghost Recon: Wildlands." Even if you play it and find it boring or repetitive, as long as your interest remains, you will definitely think of this game someday. During moments of boredom, its aftertaste will linger in your mouth, and you might occasionally feel like going back to play a couple of rounds.
It's just a simple tactical prone turn
I've played "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" intermittently for a long time, and whenever I return, I don't do much. I don't grind for gear scores, don't run dungeons, and don't complete map missions. I just lie on the ground, rolling around, covering myself in mud and snow, ambushing formulaic AI passersby. If you ask me what gameplay design is involved here—honestly, none. But these tactical movements are done so well that if you enjoy them, you'll want to come back occasionally. It's like enjoying the cowboy life of horse riding, camping, and fishing, which makes you repeatedly return to "Red Dead Redemption 2."
Therefore, this is not an issue of gameplay design. Whether an open world can retain players ultimately depends on its technological accumulation. As long as the stacking is sufficient, or reaches a spectacular level, players will naturally stay. The problem with Ubisoft's open worlds is precisely that they don't stack enough—certainly not as much as Rockstar—and their technology isn't stacked in the right places.
The gap between "Ghost Recon: Wildlands" and "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" is far less significant than launch players claimed. After multiple rounds of updates, Everythinggj the predecessor had, "Breakpoint" also has, and even does better. But Ubisoft insists on engaging in saturated competition within its own titles, much like domestic mobile app developers—throwing the gear score system from "The Division" into a tactical shooter simulation, making it so bullets don't kill enemies. This is baffling—why not have Altair farm for legendary golden hidden blades?
Speaking of de-RPGification and enhanced immersion. Another important change in this next-gen version is the addition of a massive amount of global settings and toggles, similar to the subsequent updates for "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint."
First, tactical reloading and permadeath, originally exclusive to Ghost Mode, were integrated into all modes. Additionally, a series of customizable parameters were enabled, including friendly fire, team damage, and enemy alertness levels, completely breaking down and subdividing the game's difficulty levels.
Furthermore, there's the immersive HUD layout in "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint," which is mandatory for "hardcore" play—didn't people complain about Ubisoft's bloated UI? Now it can all be removed. No compass, no markers, no minimap, no ammo count; you rely entirely on drones, naked eyes, and memory... Surely this counts as hardcore now.
I doubt players would buy it either. In reality, few people actually play in immersive mode with the full UI disabled; it's genuinely inconvenient for open-world games. We've already seen this in "Elden Ring," and many players also complained about the probe system in "Assassin's Creed Shadows." Everyone complains, but if you ask for solutions, no one really knows. Ubisoft is stuck in the middle, unable to move, viewed from any angle as a mountain of prejudice.
You see, major studios are often more confused than anyone else, leading to mistakes from overproduction. If "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" had truly been just a large DLC for "Ghost Recon: Wildlands," it wouldn't have received so much backlash—the problem is precisely that it wasn't, although it was indeed poorly executed.
Even more tragically, even if "Ghost Recon: Breakpoint" were just a large DLC for "Ghost Recon: Wildlands," it would still face criticism. Because after so many updates, players finally realized—
In the end, isn't this just a large DLC for "Ghost Recon: Wildlands"?