Darn, should have added a 'let me see what others thought' poll choice... I said zero since I didn't play it yet and kind of doubt people will give it an outright zero if we're being honest?

... At this point, why don't you just set a "stars to price I'm willing to pay" table for us. It would be easier. And just as meaningless.

I generally don't like Ubisoft games because they're always bland, boring, and by the numbers for me, but I've been liking Wildlands a lot. I'm not usually a "wow look at the map!" guy, but the variety and amount of detail they put into that area is really impressive. If you played MGSV and had a lot of fun sneaking into outposts and bases, Wildlands scratches a lot of the same itch. All the writing and dialogue should be ignored and driving with mouse and keyboard feels weird, but it's still fun to run around shooting dudes. The only multiplayer I've done with it was when Rorie did that stream a couple weeks back. Definitely don't pay $60 for it unless you have lots of disposable income you don't care about. I got it for $40 during the Steam sale and I'll get my money's worth, but I think it's very much a game you have to go in with low expectations for.

@bfinstad86: The stars are meaningful to the person that makes it, which was me, so it's not meaningless. And I believe that the numbers are self-explanatory as well. If you're not satisfied with the poll, you can go into more detail telling me how you felt about the game which is what I'm curious about.

@bocckob: What I expect right now is that the game would be a fun shooter, and hopefully have a decent and varied setting. I expect a less than good, but perhaps an adequate enough story. From the sounds of it, the characters are not good. I have the feeling it's repetitive in what you do, but I'm not sure. If the story, characters and things to do are better than I am expecting, that'll be good. I'd probably get it on the PS4. Oh, and setting in games is very important to me, so if that is good enough, even if it's repetitive in what you do, I can probably look past some of the issues.

Half stars are gross.

It's somewhere between a meh to okay game IMO. The gameplay was "fine", but it's not all that tactical or skillful like past GR games. The world was big and looked good, but lifeless (should've had Far Cry's animal system to spice it up) and it's too big, since I'd never want to drive a car (partly because they didn't drive great) and because aircraft is so much faster/easier. The story and dialogue are pretty bad. At its core, it is a good but brainless 3rd person shooter in a world/environment that had potential but felt flat (similar to Watchdogs 1 in that way). If it was $30 or less and someone has at least two friends to play the whole game with I'd recommend it.

The game is a lot of fun with friends but it's boring and lifeless solo. It's also filled to the brim with very repetitive missions and the story is near non exsistant.

I'd give it three stars. For kicks i'll also grade some Clancy games so you can judge whether or not to trust my opinion.

I would echo those that say the game feels a little lifeless solo. I almost feel like I am playing a board game by myself. All the pieces are there but the whole thing is missing some dynamics that come with another human's actions. I do have fun with the game solo though but I only play bits and pieces here and there. The combat is decent enough to be fun on it's own. I think my biggest gripe with the game is an old complaint I had with Far Cry as well, it's probably something within Ubisoft's engines. Whenver you engage enemies and don't instantly kill them they all know where you are, no matter how far away you are, they know. You can out-flank them with that though, but it feels a little too much like they all got eagle eye vision the moment they are aware someone is attacking. So it sometimes feel a little less elegant than it has potential to be. I'm going to land on 3 stars.

No half points at giantbomb.com!!!!!!

I didn't like the beta at all, really surprised it reviewed as well as it did. Then again i played solo.

Not trying to shit on you, just wondering what the thought process is that makes you include half points in a 1-5 scale rather than just do a 1-10 scale. I've seen plenty of people do it and I've been curious but never asked.

cocaine/5

The most fun I had was wandering around the map. It was basically a nice hiking sim.

@imhungry: @nightriff: @liquiddragon: Eh, I never reviewed a game on Giant Bomb, but I thought the scoring for users (as opposed to the staff) allowed half points, so I used that. I guess I remembered incorrectly. That said, all scoring systems can work the same, so I see little issue. It was just to get the gist of what people felt because not everyone wants to post their thoughts I'm sure. Honestly, it's a little weird people get so worked up over the types of point scales when it is about the discussion of the game. The score is just a glimpse since there are those that don't want to go into detail, and I'm fine with that.

@boozak: Just because you felt one way about those games doesn't mean our opinions wouldn't be similar on another, that said, yeah I'd give all of those games different scores. I like hearing what others have to say, but it's mainly for discussion. No offense to you and others but I always take others' opinions with a grain of salt since we all have our own feelings on games and things in general in the minutest of details; it's just nice to see what you all have to say regardless. I may end up agreeing or disagree if I play it. I won't know until (or if) I try.

I've been cooping this game with a friend of mine recently. It's pretty hilarious at times, and others pretty fun to lightly strategize on objectives. But it's a whole lot of do the same thing, rinse, repeat. We're only a few people in and I could see it starting to get boring to persist this way. A lot of what Jeff says in his review is pretty spot on for me.

I'm kinda blank faced as to why this game gets shit on but MGSV gets praised. I mean don't get me wrong, there are differences, but I feel that overall Wildlands is a co-op MGSV with a real open world. I'm not necessarily saying either one is better, but if you enjoyed one, chances are you /should/ enjoy the other. Maybe I'm crazy, tho.

@shivermetimbers: I enjoyed both but polish goes a long way, MGS V is a well made game that plays smoothly even on consoles while Wildlands is very... Ubisofty, to put it kindly.

Also as much shit as MGS V's story gets it was infinitely more interesting than the excuse for a plot Wildlands had.

@boozak: Which game has the better setting though? MGS5 was super underwhelming in that regard. MGS5's story and setting make it so it's not my favorite MGS game, though it plays really well.

@ntm: It's hard to say, as much as I like MGS V I have to agree that africa and the middle east werent very interesting, but MGS V had that layer of anime slathered on top (mechs, crazy gear, crazy characters) which love or hate it definitely made it more unique. Wildlands has very low budget videos for each of your targets but beyond that it is quite devoid of personality.

Also MGS V had a great sound track licenced or otherwise, whereas Wildlands just had an annoying DJ that didnt fit the tone of the game.

@boozak: Yeah, nothing against Africa and the Middle East as a setting, I just thought it was blandly represented in MGS5. It coming off of a multitude of previous games that had noteworthy settings like Shadow Moses and what have you. The soundtrack to MGS5 was good, though I wish there were better '80s tracks. You mention the DJ, but that's the radio if I understand correctly, what about the OST by Alain Johannes? I've listened to some of it on YouTube, but it's not always the same as when playing the game since the experience of blending the music with the gameplay can change the feeling.

@ntm: I cant really say about Wildlands OST, I played the majority of the game in co-op so the music was mostly ignored. When I did play solo nothing really stood out to me.

I finished Assassin's Creed: Origins; did everything in it which took about 75 hours. It was good, but in middle of all that I was starting to feel like playing something else, so I finally bought this. I have played several hours of it this morning and I have to say, it's really good! I like it a lot. The only issues so far are that the protagonist's voice doesn't match my characters look (which is either a Sam Fisher Black List suit, or a cigar-chomping, Sarah Connor T2 look [which can either be seen as badass, or as a jackass]), and though I think the visuals are great, the NPC animations/detail/and collision is kind of dated looking. So far it reminds me of Advanced Warfighter (plus and minus a few aspects) and MGS 5. I like the Bolivia setting a lot. I appreciate the way they're doing the world building (if that's what it's called) where you find collectibles, similar to The Division, and it'll tell you about something in the country, or be an audio log that gives personality to someone.

The music so far hasn't been a prevalent thing, but the ambient music is good. Guitar lightly playing, helping immerse me in the world, thinking about the situation. I am impressed with how precise your squadmates call out enemy whereabouts, as well as say in a handful of ways that it's not cool that I'm aiming my gun at a civilian. I can't tell if I like the characters; I like that they have much more personality than I expected, telling bad jokes along the way, but they're not exactly the kind of 'heroes' that I want to play as. Sound design, in general, is really good; some voice work could be better. It's pretty cool too that nighttime really means nighttime, so if you have the brightness setting set to what's recommended, you actually have to use the night vision goggles. The weather changing is also a nice breath of fresh air considering AC: Origins' Egypt is pretty much sunny all the time.

Perhaps lastly, the shooting and stealth feel great to me. I'm super early, just trying to do everything in the specific sector first before moving on, and I'm in the first one, but yeah, I like it and I'm really happy about it. It's the Ghost Recon experience, at least so far, that I wanted. I'm feeling kind of bad I didn't just get it around release. Oh, I wish in the Ubisoft Club menu you could get an Advanced Warfighter 1/2 suit that Scott Mitchell wore. I hope it was okay that I bumped this thread and said my thoughts here instead of just making a new thread; I didn't think a new thread needed to be made for this.