Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Wildlands Review

[damnthereaper]

You can reduce any criticism to a propoganda movie to the same argument. The reasoning makes sense in the same way as a movie like Zero Dark Thirty or American Sniper or Reefer Madness is criticized while other movies which features more explicit content like Kill Bill is not. Just like the way you see liberal propoganda in Techspot content, Heather saw an imperialist propoganda in Wildlands .

ZDT is a political expression.
AS is a political expression.
RM is a political expression.
KB is not a political expression.
GR:W is not a political expression.

The point is that the author is complaining about something that doesn't exist. It's literally been injected into the review to transform it into something that it isn't, a political expression.

Yeah, people see things differently. But there is a difference between having a different perspective and seeing something that isn't there.

The Kotaku review and the Ars Technica review are both guilty of the latter. They are delusional and fake.

Well they aren't the only ones since even the president of Bolivia hasn't been to happy with the portrayal either before reviews/release of the game happened, so whether political expression is intended or not doesn't mean that a message is inadvertently being sent and can be interpreted. I dont believe that the creators of the game intended for it to come off that way but to pretend that everyone who is offended is being delusional is a pretty far stretch compared to maybe they are interpreting more then the intent

 

[OcelotRex]

The opposite can be said too... It's a video game, not a political statement... LOL! The fact that a video game presents a political action under such angle, "GI Joe" style can *also* be seen as a political stance.. don't you think?

One of the staples of the Civilization series is how Gandhi, known in real life for his pacifism, is also the most likely to use nuclear weapons. Kotaku also covered this in their classic, irreverent tone though I cannot link at this moment.

Video games can mimic life and lots of things in life are political. Overreacting to video games' content is always a quick way to get clicks from both sides of the argument.

 

[SamuraiSamson]

One of the staples of the Civilization series is how Gandhi, known in real life for his pacifism, is also the most likely to use nuclear weapons. Kotaku also covered this in their classic, irreverent tone though I cannot link at this moment.

Video games can mimic life and lots of things in life are political. Overreacting to video games' content is always a quick way to get clicks from both sides of the argument.

Surely it is not that hard to determine the nuance between the two situations.

 

[OcelotRex]

Surely it is not that hard to determine the nuance between the two situations.

That request falls on deaf ears to me since if I'm required to use nuance so should others be.

If anything the Gandhi issue is greater - he's a real historical figure from India who sought independence through pacifism. India is a nuclear power who has contentious relations with other nuclear powers, such as Pakistan.

Bolivia has a real history with Cartels and corruption. It's not like the Cartel leader was names Roberto Suarez, the actual head of the Bolivian Cartel Drug Lord.

ETA: here is Ubisoft's response which in my opinion makes Bolivia's protest seem petty

"Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Wildlands is a work of fiction, similar to movies or TV shows. Like all Tom Clancy’s games from Ubisoft, the game takes place in a modern universe inspired by reality, but the characters, locations and stories are all fantasies created solely for entertainment purposes. Bolivia was chosen as the background of this game based on its magnificent landscapes and rich culture. While the game’s premise imagines a different reality than the one that exists in Bolivia today, we do hope that the in-game world comes close to representing the country’s beautiful topography, and that players enjoy exploring the diverse and open landscapes it moved us to create."

 

[hahahanoobs]

Soooo, what started as a disagreement with the politics observed in the game review, lead to a political discussion in the comments under said game review.
Please stop.

Ignoring the politics in the review (yes, it can be done), I agree with the bulk of the review. Ubisoft should stay away from open world games for a while - a long while. Less than ten hours into the beta I had to uninstall it. It was a good try, but the only thing open about this world was how damn repetitive and clunky it was.

 

[Julio Franco]

Thank you for your response Julio. As an avid reader of both Kotaku and Techspot I feel as though each site has different goals:

Techspot tends to side on objectivity and tries to identify when you all head to the subjective.

Kotaku (and game reviews by their nature) tend to be subjective. I thought Heather's review was on point up until the paragraph starting, " It is possible to play the game with a team of AI partners." It seems fitting that the paragraph ends with an unnecessary expletive, a hallmark of the Univision Ex-Gawker writers. It's also something (thankfully) I don't see much on this site.

Another reason I like Techspot is you don't see as much "personal agenda" as you see with certain writers at Kotaku/Gizmodo. That's why I brought up the Breath of Wild article from the day before. I can appreciate someone else's point of view especially when it differs so greatly from my own experience. When I feel that point of view spills into a review which should maintain some levels of professionalism because of the writer's body of work it devalues the piece in my opinion. That's why I'd prefer to further distance this site from theirs and not just when it's this writer or this review.

I'll end my rant by saying both sites have merit but I don't want Techspot becoming more like Kotaku; if anything Kotaku could learn something from this site.

Thanks for the honest assessment. We (TechSpot and Kotaku) do things quite differently and certainly cover two very related but differentiated industries... however I do see a ton of value in being able to republish some of Kotaku's content (we handpick, often covering not just gaming but the culture behind it) and viceversa, they republish some of our most hardcore hardware testing which they are unable to do, which is valuable to their audience of gamers. This specific review was probably not the best choice, but we've seen some great ones as well.

 

[EClyde]

So, What do you think Tom had to do with this besides getting a check?

 

[EClyde]

Put political messages in games then expect political commentary.

The game doesn't try to make a political statement. It's generic cartel vs commandos nonsense that the author of the review needlessly politicizes as if any sane, rational individual is going to fire it up and use it to inform their view of the world.

By reviewing it as political....they hope to sway people to their worldview...They never sleep

 

[EClyde]

Thank you for your response Julio. As an avid reader of both Kotaku and Techspot I feel as though each site has different goals:

Techspot tends to side on objectivity and tries to identify when you all head to the subjective.

Kotaku (and game reviews by their nature) tend to be subjective. I thought Heather's review was on point up until the paragraph starting, " It is possible to play the game with a team of AI partners." It seems fitting that the paragraph ends with an unnecessary expletive, a hallmark of the Univision Ex-Gawker writers. It's also something (thankfully) I don't see much on this site.

Another reason I like Techspot is you don't see as much "personal agenda" as you see with certain writers at Kotaku/Gizmodo. That's why I brought up the Breath of Wild article from the day before. I can appreciate someone else's point of view especially when it differs so greatly from my own experience. When I feel that point of view spills into a review which should maintain some levels of professionalism because of the writer's body of work it devalues the piece in my opinion. That's why I'd prefer to further distance this site from theirs and not just when it's this writer or this review.

I'll end my rant by saying both sites have merit but I don't want Techspot becoming more like Kotaku; if anything Kotaku could learn something from this site.

Thanks for the honest assessment. We (TechSpot and Kotaku) do things quite differently and certainly cover two very related but differentiated industries... however I do see a ton of value in being able to republish some of Kotaku's content (we handpick, often covering not just gaming but the culture behind it) and viceversa, they republish some of our most hardcore hardware testing which they are unable to do, which is valuable to their audience of gamers. This specific review was probably not the best choice, but we've seen some great ones as well.

How I gonna know you copying other stuff less you tell me at the jump. I never bin to kotukoko

 

[skipmichael]

This is not the first time Techspot has been criticized for interjecting leftist politics into their reviews. Once again, I will say that Techspot is supposed to be a website discussing technology not social issues or politics on either side of the spectrum. And again, I will say to you Techspot, I’m not going away, I will read your reviews and criticize your reviewers and website for trying to be a political when you should be about technology. From some of the posts I’m reading, I’m not alone. Get a clue, or suffer the consequences.

 

[texasrattler]

So, What do you think Tom had to do with this besides getting a check?

You do know that Tom Clany is dead. He died like a year ago I think. So HE isnt collecting anything. Also he didnt make any games, the games were based on his books.

 

[EClyde]

You do know that Tom Clany is dead. He died like a year ago I think. So HE isnt collecting anything. Also he didnt make any games, the games were based on his books.

No Checks? Someone should get some $ for his name ! Tom was OK. I read a couple of his books and played part of one his games....I know he didn't make no games, reread the question then think about it

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Hmm..what's a generic cartel vs commandos nonsense for you might not be the same for someone else. For me this normalizes American imperialism and I would not like to spend a single penny on this game . So this review was certainly helpful in that. Surely an argument can be made that games like Counter-Strike which lets you play as terrorists or GTA is guilty of the same thing. But this is a more sombre game which presents a motivation for why it's taking place and with definite parallels to the real world making it propaganda. If you think movies which feature propaganda should be criticized for it then the same extends to games as well.

So I guess you don't buy any games called Call of Duty, Modern Warfare, Battlefield, Rainbow Six, etc or watch Tom Clancy movies like Clear and Present Danger?
Most of those games are about US soldiers or US led special forces going into other countries and fighting foreign soldiers, terrorists, drug cartels, etc.

 

[ghostf1re]

I actually enjoy the game. I like sneaking up on bases and sniping enemies from a distance. I enjoy playing with 3 of my friends and cooperating to hit a base or village. That being said, I do not really consider this to be in line with the Ghost Recon franchise. It's a cool game and the open world is awesome. The graphics look good, though tend to be oddly choppy even on powerful machines. That's Ubisoft for you though. But in terms of this being a Ghost Recon game, it's a let down.

 

[Jo3yization]

This is a GAME, not a political statement lol. Please keep your political opinions to yourself and just review the game.....

This is one area where I wish Techspot would not just blindly re-post a Kotaku article and not overtly distance themselves from it. I think this review needs a disclaimer at the top.

Try not to take too much from this review: this is the same writer who yesterday spent 700 words espousing their gratification for the ability to cross dress in Breath of the Wild.

The moment passed and I was now left with the clothes and could use them however I wanted. One of the most radical things you can do when you are marginalized is to reassert and reaffirm the value of your own identity. The game afforded me that opportunity. Link could be fabulous, if I wanted. He could dress like a girl and still be the hero. I could walk up to the Master Sword and so long as I had journeyed enough, I could claim it. It didn’t matter what I was wearing.

With her everything it seems everything is political and if you don't identify with her beliefs yours are bad.

This. Not meaning to sound sexist but I could tell the gender of the author just by the writing & only confirmed it when I scrolled back up to look at who wrote it since I didnt actually check before I started reading.

The game is damn fun & definitely isnt meant to be taken seriously, along the same lines of GTA, Just Cause or Far Cry. I have no idea how she managed to put such a negative spin on it. Taking it far too seriously perhaps instead of for what it is, an epic shooter sandbox. No mention of how enjoyable simple trail riding is through the various terrain throughout the game or finding places to go base jumping. Just a highly critical review of the story line alone, not the stealth or the tactical aspects, bullet drop, levelling system & perks.

"superfluous skill tree for unlocking special gear or receiving boosts to stamina or weapon accuracy. Players accrue experience points to level up that generate skill points that can be spent. Each unlock also takes an arbitrary amount of raw material resources like medical supplies or gasoline, which can be found and “tagged” in the open world."

- What a load of bs, if you actually enjoy taking out a fortified enemy base, whether it be at a distance during the day/night or sneak in for a covert-op, the skill tree is as enjoyable as any other shooter game. You can increase your "sneakiness" by lowering chance of detection, shoot out virtually any light source in the game & move through the dark, the possibilities are endless & taking out cartel bases alone using various tactics is a very redeeming quality about the rather bland(for some) story line. There are also "convoy" missions were you have to take out a moving target escorted by multiple vehicles offering large amounts of upgrade resources, except damaging the convoy "objective" vehicle can cut the reward in half so there's incentive to carefully plan ambushes on these convoys using the various tech available in the game, EMP drones, C4, Mines, Shooting out the tires or even the driver.

The entire article was written from a *very* objective point of view.