I didn't get much satisfaction from the Ghost Recon Wildlands open beta, but the reception by most critics and Steam players suggest that the majority of the gaming populace will enjoy what the now-released game has to offer. Not everyone is entirely impressed with it, but it still seems that Ubisoft have got another open world success on their hands, one that offers tactical shooting, fun co-op and lots to do and collect.
Here's our review round-up*:
*Updated to replace some in-progress reviews with completed ones.
Attack of the Fanboy - Ghost Recon: Wildlands can provide countless hours of thrilling sandbox shooter gameplay, but co-op is needed to make the most of it. Its massive, numerous and diverse locales are often gorgeous to behold, and navigating them tactfully with a good co-op team is a blast. Just don't expect to have as much fun in single player, as your team limits your mission methods due to shaky AI and a lack of deep squad commands.
Eurogamer - 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 undue compunction is rotten to the core. Wildlands is a world worth lingering over, but I need a better reason to make the trip.
Game Revolution - Ghost Recon Wildlands is a co-op shooter unlike any I've played before. It's a tactical shooter that doesn't throw tactics out the window as soon as you're discovered. Though much better played with friends, Wildlands is still a must-have for anyone who loves the tactical shooting genre.
Even at the most basic level, there's simply so much to do in Wildlands because they've so carefully populated their open world with enough to do that you won't feel like you're simply walking over massive areas to get to the sporadic points of action.
GamesRadar - 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.
IGN - 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.
Metro - The game’s reticence to impose on players – and instead to just let them do whatever they want – ends up spoiling them, and making it more obvious than it needs be that Wildlands is actually quite a shallow, generic game at heart. For everyone but a hardcore Ghost Recon veteran the game ticks all the boxes you’d expect, but it never creates any new ones of its own.