Gaming no image

Published on March 13th, 2017 | by Technable

0

Ghost Recon: Wildlands Review Roundup [Update]

Ghost Recon: Wildlands is out now, and as such reviews are now live. The open-world game has charted well, in the UK at least, in its first week on sale, but is it actually any good?

In GameSpot’s verdict, critic Miguel Concepcion called the Tom Clancy title “a middlingly safe tactical shooter and a slightly wasted opportunity,” though he did praise its “seemingly boundless map” and its mission diversity. Read more in our full Ghost Recon: Wildlands review.

For a wider view on Wildlands’ critical reception, check out GameSpot sister site Metacritic, or read on below for a snapshot of critics’ reviews.

  • Game: Ghost Recon: Wildlands
  • Developer: Ubisoft
  • Platform: PlayStation 4, Xbox One, PC
  • Release: March 7
  • Price: US $ 60 / £45 / AU $ 100

GameSpot — 7/10

“As only the second open world game in the Clancyverse, Ghost Recon: Wildlands is a middlingly safe tactical shooter and a slightly wasted opportunity given the ambitious scope of its seemingly boundless map. While its main strength is its mission diversity, it doesn’t take long to lose the motivation after reaching El Sueno’s doorstep. Even with a foursome of highly trained friends, Wildlands eventually reveals its diminishing returns. The feeling of positive immediacy and dopamine hits begin to wane sooner than you expected from a game with such a large and diverse world.” — Miguel Concepcion [Full review]

IGN — 7.9/10

“This huge, wide-open shooter constantly shows its flaws in its mission variety and vehicle physics, but its strong, sandbox-style gameplay and seamless co-op kept me coming back for more madness. If you must repeat experiences over and over, you could far worse than helicopter chases, assassination missions, or drug busts gone wildly wrong.” — Brian Albert [Full review]

PC Gamer — 67/100

“I like a lot of aspects about Wildlands, specifically its co-op experience. It’s easy to assume that any game can be fun with some friends, but Wildlands makes specific, clever design decisions that make for a better multiplayer experience–albeit to the detriment of solo players. If that consistency of vision had run through the entire game, Wildlands could have been something special. Unfortunately, there are too many mitigating factors–from design and tone, to performance and AI. Wildlands is often good, and infrequently great. In the main, though, it’s a bit of a mess.” — Phil Savage [Full review]

GamesRadar+ — 4.5/5

“None of those recurring glitches or other, one-time bugs I experienced were game-breaking, and most of the time they resulted in a fit of laughter rather than any actual frustration, but they’re definitely present. Still, it’s hard to look at those shortcomings as anything other than the small unwanted side effects of building a game as massive, detailed, and rich as Wildlands is. In fact, Wildlands is so far removed from what most have come to expect from a Ghost Recon title that it could have benefitted from shedding its sub-franchise namesake and simply standing on its own. It’s certainly got the legs for it.” — Mike Wehner [Full review]

Eurogamer — No score

“It’s easier to ignore the game’s fundamental toxicity and hand-worn elements in co-op, but all that’s still there at the back of your mind, like the smell of something burning in a crowded room. Earlier in the week I asked whether the Ubisoft open world had run out of steam. After a few days in the Wildlands I think the answer is a hesitant ‘no’–few development studios are capable of landscapes as grand yet delicately worked as this, but the methods by which we traverse and uncover them are overdue a rethink, and the concept of a godlike special operator killing without compunction is rotten to the core. Wildlands is an environment worth lingering over, but the mechanics and themes it propagates are wearing extremely thin.” — Edwin Evans-Thirlwell [Full review]

GameSpot

Tags: , , , , ,


About the Author



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top ↑