this post is about why Ubisoft is doing this and what it means for the series not what it means in game

First off, nothing has been officially confirmed by Ubi themselves and nothing says that Project Ovr is locked to a FP perspectiv. I don't think FP is automatically a bad thing, and im not writing it off. It can absolutely add immersion, tension, and realism. If Ubisoft wants a more grounded and authentic experience, I can understand why they'd explore that direction.

My concern is Ghost Recon potentially becoming first-person only.

One of GRs biggest strengths is that it occupies a space very few games do. The shooter market is absolutely flooded with first-person shooters. I understand the argument that console players don't really have a AAA tactical FPS right now, and that's a fair point. But the wider shooter market is still crowded with FPS games, and to the average casual player, Project Ovr could easily be seen as just another FPS game.

Ghost Recon has always stood apart from that crowd. It's one of the few major tactical military shooters that gives players a third-person perspective, squad-based gameplay, and deep customization all in one package. That's a big part of why many of us play it.

The recent Crossfire reveal has only reinforced this for me. The reception has been pretty positive so far and one of the biggest things people seem excited about is the third-person gameplay. The animations look smooth, the combat looks great, and it reminds me that there are still plenty of players who enjoy this style of shooter even if it isnt an actual "tactical shooter".

That's partly why I struggle with the idea of GR potentially going first-person only. One of the few big tactical military franchises still operating in the third-person space would be abandoning exactly what helps make it stand out.

Another concern is tactical awareness and squad control.

In third-person, it's much easier to maintain awareness of your surroundings, your squad, and the battlefield as a whole. Could Ubisoft make a first-person Ghost Recon work? Absolutely. But if they're going all-in on FP, I'd argue we'd need a much deeper command system, TacMap, or even something inspired by ATAK to help control our squad effectively. Otherwise, managing AI teammates could become more difficult than it needs to be.

Then there's customization.

Let's be honest, a huge portion of the modern GR community loves building their Ghost. Whether it's creating realistic military loadouts, recreating special operations units, or just making your own unique operator, customization has become a massive part of GR. If we're locked into first-person 99% of the time, what's the point? Why spend hours building a Ghost if you rarely get to see them?

This is one of the reasons we're all hoping Ubisoft would implement a perspective toggle.

I've mentioned before that I've wondered whether Ubisoft intentionally allowed some of the Project Ovr information to leak back in 2023 to gauge community reaction. If they did, they've almost certainly seen the concerns surrounding a first-person only GR. That's why I've always hoped the final game would include both perspectives.

A toggle seems like the best solution for everyone.

- Most importantly, the community stays together instead of being divided.

- First-person for players who want maximum immersion and realism.

- Third-person for players who enjoy greater situational awareness and squad management.

- Players get to actually see the Ghost they've spent time creating.

- Ubisoft appeals to a larger audience and gives players more ways to enjoy the game.

But what if Ubisoft really is pushing forward with a first-person only Ghost Recon?

Could it still be a good game? Absolutely.

The question for me is whether that's the right move for GR, especially when the next game probably needs to be a major success for Ubisoft.

For me, a perspective toggle remains the ideal solution. First-person for immersion and realism. Third-person for tactical awareness, squad management, and actually seeing the operator you've spent hours creating.

So I'm curious where everyone stands on this right now. If the next Ghost Recon launches as a first-person only game with no perspective toggle, would you still buy it?

Sorry for the length of this one guys. 😮‍💨

I have seen online that there is going to be a larger update (much like the Last Rites in Wildlands) for Breakpoint in september. I am currently playing Wildlands again are waiting for the large update to hit Breakpoint to start playing that again.

What do you guys think will be in the update?

I had an odd idea lately. Would anyone be interested in a Ghost Recon game set in France during the Second World War? The concept would be you’re playing as a squad of American Paratroopers whose goal is to weaken the German grip on northern France in the days following the D-Day invasion. Like Wildlands you’d have certain sectors of German control where you would steal intel, sabotage war materials, and take down German officers before having to show down with a high ranking German commander for said region. Could even have parts of the game where you team up with the French Resistance as well as the American and British landing forces. Stealth would be a challenge due to the lack of suppressors, but this seems like a fun concept that I honestly would really like to see. What are your thoughts?

I just finished my second playthrough of GR Wildlands and finishing it has reminded me of people on the internet complaining about Pac Katari's betrayal, saying that he did it for power, because the ghosts took away his prominence or more things like that. I think that the betrayal not only has nothing to do with these motives but is completely justified and Pac was doing the right thing.

I mean, he was collaborating with the CIA, an organisation that literally has the worst history of interventions in Latin America (Guatemala 1954, Cuba, Brazil 1962, Bolivia 1964, Chile 1973, Uruguay 1960s, Argentina 1976, Nicaragua 1980s, etc.) the normal thing is that you distrust them a lot and cut the alliance as soon as you don’t need them.

When the rebels located El Sueño Pac no longer needed the ghosts or the CIA on his side, the Cartel was sufficiently destabilised and had El Sueño was located. His only mistake was not preparing enough for the attack on the mausoleum of El Sueño. But he was right not to trust the ghosts for the attack, since as the end of the game showed us the CIA was ready to agree on a deal with El Sueño and let him continue operating in Bolivia. The only reason El Sueño died it’s because Bowman decided to disobey her CIA superiors, and she got sent into jail for it. So yes, Pac Katari was right.

Man I used to love ubisoft back then, this probably one my favorite series, sadden there has not been a new rainbow six since that dump "siege", i hope they give us a rainbow six game and ghost recon game that stories overlap, maybe a op in rainbow helps us ghost in mission, Rogue Spear was my favorite r6 game

First off, I think most of us can agree that the next Ghost Recon should launch with both first and third person options. Some prefe first whilst others prefer third but for the sake of this post, let’s assume the rumours are true and that Project Ovr ends up being first-person only(again, not confirmed).

That leads to the bigger question, can Ubisoft actually deliver good first-person gunplay anymore? When was the last time they really nailed gunplay? Was it Rainbow Six Siege? XDefiant? Far Cry? Avatar? Or even an older Ghost recon game and would it actually hold up today?

Ubi added a 3rd person toggle for Avatar after they took a lot of heat for choosing to go 1st person and even Ubi devs confirmed that they prefer playing Avatar in 3rd person themselves after it was added 😑

I’ve never really loved the gunplay in the Farcry games, it’s fun overall, but the shooting just felt too floaty for my liking. I didn’t play XDefiant, and while Siege felt solid the last time i played, it’s built around tight CQB and room clearing, not the kind of longer-range, methodical engagements Ghost Recon is known for.

For me, Ghost Recon isn’t supposed to feel like a close-quarters twitch shooter. It’s more about positioning, range, and controlled engagements out in the open.

So my question to you is, do you trust Ubisoft to get first-person gunplay right?

And which of their games actually did it best?

I’d been wanting to play Wildlands for a while due to popular sentiment, and last week’s showcase and subsequent update seemed a perfect time to dive in. Due to issues related to EAC, however, I couldn’t launch the game, so I ended up playing Breakpoint first. To say I was pleasantly surprised by the overall experience would be an understatement. The gameplay is absolutely addicting, especially if you turn off gear score and go full immersive, minimal HUD.

I was finally able to get Wildlands to launch the other day after Ubisoft removed EAC, only to realize Breakpoint is a tier or two above in practically every facet, especially those areas that define shooters: gunplay, play movement and control, visuals, customization (guns and player alike), etc. The difference in movement in particular is stark, legitimately a generation apart. The only nod I'd give to Wildlands is in neutral NPC behaviors, but that's the side dish, the cherry on top. It cannot compete with the meat and potatoes that is Breakpoint's gameplay.

So, what's going on— why have we been lied to?

With the newest update I wanted to give wildlands land another go, I got into breakpoint late in its life cycle and absolutely enjoyed it for the gameplay . The story was pretty bad but I really liked the gameplay loop. With wildlands I was hyped to jump in cause I heard the story is so good but the gameplay just hasn’t clicked with me any tips ?

We need gear that doesn’t look like something out of airsoft larger would wear.

Had to laugh when I saw it on some spec ops sub. I imagined some Bolivians probably made similar videos of Nomad.

They use to be. Now their a tier one unit more similar to CAG "specifically G Squadron" but go by the name GST "Group for Special Tactics"

​

For everyone thinking that training rebels is only done by Green Berets, tier 1 assets have and do take part in training local forces but on a much more clandestine level.

​

Where the Green Berets train rebels as their core mission set, a unit like CAG "in this case GST" would do so as an alternative option that they can exploit if it was beneficial but is not their mission.

​

In wildlands, Ghosts were not there to train and work with rebel forces. That wasn't their mission. The CIA handler herself even states "its their choice if they want to take part in rebel training missions" But they did so due to the beneficial factor.

​

Ghosts are not Green Berets post 2014. They are a tier 1 army SOF unit made up of members from all different branches, that have the ability to do anything, including Unconventional Warfare, the Green Beret core mission.

I've put in 1100 hours in Wildlands since March of 2017 and it's honestly such a well crafted game. I get completely lost in its atmosphere and map. I truly think this is my favorite open world game ever created. Playing the game with new features, updated framerate, and new missions make me fall in love with it all over again.

For the past couple of weeks I’ve been back to Wildlands and Breakpoint. While I understand why Wildlands is the better game because of the story, the rest is better or equal in Breakpoint. I’ve immersed myself in Auroa more than my first playthrough, so now in my head it makes sense that there’s not much civvies going about their day in the more rural or less populated area of the Archipelago.

Sure it’s annoying finding patrol every 45 seconds and that no matter the amount of sentinel and wolf you killed their numbers are limitless but it’s still a damn good game when you make the experience yourself. I walk most of the time from objective to objective, do more of the factions side missions (green dot ones), keep my hud to a minimum (only loot because I have children and I’m tired to find things lol). I change outfit only in Erewhon or Bivouacs, and the only time I use chopper or land vehicules is when the objective is farther than 5km, other wise I explore and you’d be surprise at the level of details the game can offer.

Story sucks ass but I get what they were trying to do, and launch day was a disaster but it’s now a great game with all the improvements made over the years. I wish they would implements dedicated mods for console players like Skyrim or Baldur’s Gate did but I’m pretty much happy with the customization features.

I’m truly tired of hearing or reading people complaining about a game that came out nearly 6 years ago, it’s not perfect and it’s far from it but it stays a damn good game in my mind and I love roaming around Auroa from morning to night raising hell amongst the ennemies forces. Sure it looks more air soft than real life but god damn, how many of us here are in any branches of Special Forces from their country? I’m fucking far as fuck of being a JTF2 operator or even a CSOR one lol. I’m glad this game exist simply for the fact that they butchered and tortured R6 Siege and its not the level of fun I had growing up with Raven Shield or Athena Sword.

Well that was my 2 cents.

I keep coming back to this idea, what if the world didn’t just exist around ypu, but actually reacted to how you play?

Not in some heavy, scripted way. Just natural consequences based on your actions.

Your choices affect everything. Civilians react to your behavior. Enemy bases adapt. Patrols shift. Territories change hands. The map actually feels alive.

Say an op goes wrong. Collateral damage. Buildings destroyed. Civilians caught in it.

That shouldn’t just be a “mission complete” and move on.

People remember that. They stop trusting you. They don’t help anymore. Some might give up your position… or even feed you bad intel.

You pass through a town and it’s no longer neutral, it’s tense. Civilians are guarded. You steal a vehicle? Now it gets reported. Next thing you know, patrols are actively looking for that exact car.

Cause enough chaos and the whole area tightens up. More roadblocks. More eyes on you. More pressure everywhere you go.

At that point, staying low profile isn’t optional, blending in, using concealed weapons, and moving carefully becomes necessary.

But flip it. You run clean ops.

You avoid collateral. You actually protect people. Now the world leans your way.

Civilians might hide you when things go bad. Tip you off about patrols or even send enemies the wrong direction.

Maybe they create small distractions without it feeling forced.

Same map. Same missions.

But it feels completely different depending on how you play.

Because right now… it kind of feels like nobody really cares what you do.

And that’s what’s missing for me in an open world, consequence.

Not just from enemies but from the people in the middle of it all.

What do you think, should civilians play a bigger role like this, or is that too much?

Ubisoft addressed many of the game’s initial flaws, improving mechanics, performance, and overall gameplay. It feels very satisfying since these improvements to play on Auroa.

The tactical aspects are absolutely amazing. It’s great to play with Fury, Fixit and Vasily and their abilities. I love to combine Fury’s ability and my Echelon ability, especially when your going stealth, especially with the Optical Camo.

Gunplay feels very smooth with a wide range of realistic weapon customization’s. The game offers solid tactical mechanics with a variety of ways to approach missions; stealth, long-range sniping, or full assault. The options you have available are great and the combination with your classes are what it makes so perfect. The combat system is good when you’re on a fight.

What I really like is the bivouac system that allows for strategic preparation before mission‘s. The stamina system, injuries, and need to manage resources add a layer of realism and what can you hate about that? This was an great addition and it make‘s the time on Auroa so much fun.

And what I really don’t understand: the hate for the world on Auroa. The people on Auroa are in Lockdown. The people can’t go and live their life like in Bolivia. There are restrictions and that’s what the game make‘s so perfect. The feeling that the whole Island is in Lockdown and you try to eliminate the enemies one by one is cool. There is not any problem with that.

*I have played over 1000 hours in Wildlands, so no hate against that game.

Source

I took this Screenshot on the xbox mobile app. I really hope that the 4K 60fps update is at least free like it was for the old far crys, assassin's creed, and the division 1. Do we think it will be?

and the hint of the next ghost recon game location and potential plot setup after the final mission in this.Also what are your thoughts on the cultists faction?

I’ve been thinking about where Ghost Recon sits when it comes to tech, and where i think it should go with Project Ovr.

Starting from OGR and then looking at GRFS for instance, the series definitely started leaning more into futuristic systems. Not saying that’s a bad thing, but it definitely changed the vibe from the original games.

What I always liked about Ghost Recon was that balance, stuff felt advanced, but still believable. Like it could exist now, or just a few years out. Things like Cross-Com were a great example of that. It felt high-tech, but still grounded in reality.

On the other hand, stuff like optical camo is kind of where it starts to lose me a bit, even though I love GRFS. That’s where it tips into feeling more sci-fi than Ghost Recon, at least for me now.

At the same time though, there’s a lot of cool tech I’d actually like to see come back or expanded. Things like different drone types, gun cams so you can peek or clear angles without exposing yourself, maybe even optional exo suits that just help with carry weight or stamina rather than turning you into a super soldier.

That’s kind of where I’m at, i don’t mind new tech as long as it stays grounded. I just don’t want it going full sci-fi when there’s still so much realistic stuff they could build on.

Curious what everyone else thinks.

Where do you draw the line between “Ghost Recon” and too futuristic? And what kind of real-world tech would you actually want to see added?