Rely on your squad

It's tough being a squad leader, isn't it? What with having to make sure your team doesn't suffer critical damage, ordering them around and fighting enemies things tend to get a little hairy. What doesn't help is if your squad is as dumb as a sack of Deku nuts.

Squad-based gameplay has taken some leaps and bounds in the last few years, and some tragic and hilarious crashes. Everyone remembers games like "S.W.A.T." and the original "Rainbow Six" that had artificial intelligence that was just okay. Then there are games like "Skyrim," in which your companion character's battle tactics are sometimes the subject of horrific ridicule. Oh, Lydia, will people ever forgive you?

Then there are games like "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier" that really surprise you with how good the squad is and actually make you excited when utilizing their abilities. When the squad actually does what it's told and you can rely on them, you tend to enjoy the mechanic rather than loathe it.

What is the key to this, though? Why is "Ghost Recon: FS" so much better with squad AI than "Mass Effect?" Perhaps it is the design and purpose of the squad itself.

In games like "Halo," "Mass Effect" and even "Dragon Age: Origins," your squad is meant to supplement your playstyle and abilities. Instead, your marines end up getting in front of you or holding better weapons. Or Morrigan will stand her ground in front of a horde of Darkspawn rather than run or cast a large AoE spell. And let's not forget Liara just sort of sitting there instead of tossing her biotic powers willy-nilly at Geth to help even out the playing field.

Luckily, in "Mass Effect" and "Dragon Age," you're able to pause the game and tell your squad where to go and to do certain things to avoid outright death. Frankly, telling them what to do actually makes them more effective in the first place, and one wonders why they're AI controlled at all.

Sometimes it's almost like they're just there to model their outfits.

Unfortunately, in games like "Halo" and "Call of Duty," you're left shouting "Why are you shooting at that guy two stories up and in cover and not the three people standing right in the middle of the road?!"

Games like "Ghost Recon: FS" make you weep with joy when you have AI that can lay down effective suppressing fire or actually take out an enemy that you tell it to. The big difference is that these AI characters are actually meant to be played by other human beings rather than just be a squad for the sake of being a squad.

Games like "Dungeon Siege III" prove this, too. Alone, with a single AI companion, you are able to go through the game rather easily with an AI character that can do the most area damage (rather than picking one that you feel will do precise damage) and wound everything enough for you to make kills quickly. Replace the AI character with three other human players and the team becomes an unstoppable cadre of magic, swords and guns. Honestly, it's something to try if you haven't played that game with other people. Again, these AI characters are made to be played by other people.

If "Dragon Age" had a cooperative campaign that allowed for online players to outfit and level the teammates accordingly to fit their playstyles or the style of the team, the game could be much more difficult but exceedingly more fun. Put in the dialogue system from "Star Wars: The Old Republic" and you've got yourself a game of the year.

"Halo: Reach" worked well enough when you play the co-op campaign, but other than that it feels like you're the only one fighting the enemy and the friendly AI is along for the ride. "Gears of War" co-op is also really fun to play and can be even more enjoyable than the competitive multiplayer (more enjoyable if you ask me).

When thinking about putting co-op in your game, don't think about doing it just because you've got a squad in your game and you want to capitalize on multiplayer madness. If a player can outfit and command the AI enough to where she's playing all four members of her team, then maybe you should think about implementing a co-op system to make it less challenging for them and promote teamwork. Maybe even give the players rewards for doing so. Whatever you do, for the love of Kratos, make the AI smart enough that they don't run four miles down a hill to attack a dragon you've been trying to avoid because you're too weak. Please, stop it Lydia. I love you, but stop it.

Probably one of the best and most challenging multiplayer experiences to date.

Ghost Recon Future Soldier Review

Wow. Honestly, wow. I'm very impressed with what Ubisoft has done with the latest installment of the Tom Clancy franchise, "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier." Set in the not-so-distant future (what a surprise considering the name), you and three other soldiers must track down the weapons dealers who tried to smuggle in a bomb to the United States, and get revenge on your predecessors'  killers.
It's not "Splinter Cell" and it's certainly not the most impressive story I've ever seen, but that doesn't matter because the real star is the gameplay itself.

The single-player campaign is the first taste of how good the game is on its own. You are slowly immersed in the different mechanics as the missions go on, but eventually, by the third or fourth one, you've got all the tools of the trade at your disposal. Of course, not all of the weapon unlocks are available (those come when you complete certain tasks in game), but you definitely can have fun with the weapon customization prior to a mission.

With your team, you're able to coordinate stealth strikes, use a small drone to spot targets up ahead and plan out your approach, disable and disarm electronics and foes and throw sensor grenades to reveal enemy positions all before you even begin a firefight. You may even avoid an altercation altogether if you use your tools correctly. It also doesn't overuse the tools to the point where they become too gimmicky. Though the Warhound mission does get repetitive, who doesn't love blowing up other soldiers with a robot and taking down helicopters with it too? It's also the only mission you use it in, so they really shove it in your face and then say "Okay, that's enough!"

If you're playing the campaign by yourself, you'll be relieved to know that your team AI is actually quite intelligent. They'll find the best routes to snipe from when you've marked a target for them and if you're in a firefight they will actually concentrate fire on the target you have called out. Most of the time, I find myself playing overwatch with the drone and just picking out targets for the AI teammates. Unlike most shooters, I didn't really feel like it was me against the entire army. I honestly felt comfortable that my team would help me out. I was even worried when one of them was taken down and had to be revived. We would almost get overrun at times.

Strategy is the key to success in "Future Soldier."

To be honest, I wasn't able to get a decent co-op campaign going because of the somewhat faulty Ubisoft/U-Play servers. Then again, it could have been Xbox Live or my own internet connection. However, from what I can gather, having a human team would greatly improve your communication between members and allow for even more creative strategies when trying to accomplish objectives. Again, this is only an assumption on the campaign. If we find differently, we'll let you know as we're trying to figure out a way to do an entire co-op campaign with the team.

Even playing on medium difficulty, I found the game to be quite a challenge, but not one where I got frustrated and had to stop playing. It was more that I was just in need of a reevaluation of my strategies. I think that's a good testament to the game itself not being annoying, bur rather intellectually stimulating as well as action packed.

Multiplayer is much better than the beta we posted about. I've been able to have several long sessions and teamed up with some pretty great squads to really get the full effect of human players working together to complete objectives. While the maps aren't as large as the campaign, you really do feel like you're doing the same thing just without the story. Every character moves the same speed and all teams have the same advantages and tech. I've never felt outmatched in firepower or weaponry, but if the other team has a better tech loadout you really need to coordinate with your team to figure out a plan. I honestly feel that if you're not working with your team in multiplayer, it will leave you utterly disappointed and angry. If you find a group you work well with or you all just seem to click, you're going to have a blast.

Guerrilla mode is pretty fun, though that's strictly for a group of players in a party. There is no online matchmaking for this mode, which is kind of sad. At least I haven't found a way to do that, but I'm fairly certain it's just for closed parties. In this mode, you have to infiltrate a specific location as quietly as possible, then stack up and hold out against as many of the 50 waves of enemies as you can. I tried it by my self and actually did fairly well, but it's definitely something you need a group for. Otherwise it's just a way to hone your skills with the game itself.

Weapon customization is fun. It's really nice to be able to play around with your builds a bit depending one what kind of game you like to play, be it ranged or spray and pray. Each attachment for the weapons has a specific boost or aid for you and it definitely comes into play during multiplayer and even the story.

Customizing weapon loadouts is very satisfying.

I was very surprised at how much I enjoyed the Kinect functionality in the game. You get to play a little "Minority Report" as you stand in front of your TV and scroll through character customization and weapon customization using your hand to move through attachments and rotate the weapon to see it from all angles. This isn't the most streamlined program I've seen on the Kinect, it's definitely buggy and more than a little cumbersome, but it's fun all the same if you're really into the high tech theme the game is going for.

I ran into a couple bugs here and there that prevented mission advancement and every now and then the servers would drop everyone in my multiplayer game back to the start screen, but otherwise the game is really well done. My biggest praise has to be the AI and cooperative gameplay that is there. You really can try as many strategies as possible to see what works for you and how you want to complete what objective. Well done, Ubisoft, well done. I give the game a solid 9/10 based on the replayability and quality of the multiplayer and single player mode.

Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Multiplayer Beta Analysis

They're soldiers. In the future.

Another Tom Clancy game is upon us, my brothers and sisters. Ghost Recon: Future Soldier is coming soon to a console near you, and if you've pre-ordered you might just be playing the multiplayer beta.

Those of you who are not playing it will be getting an analysis of what is being offered to us playing it. I have to say, right off the bat, that I am a little disappointed.

When you log in you only have access one multiplayer mode (with two variations of said mode) to play. The game shows you that there are other types of multipalyer, but you only get to try out the one mode in the beta. It's like seeing the dessert tray but only getting to choose chocolate or vanilla ice cream.

I have yet to actually be logged in to a successful version of anything but the Conflict mode of the game. The other is a Saboteur mode. Conflict is where the two teams compete to complete certain objectives on the map before the other team. Hold down a position, hack intel, that sort of thing. Saboteur is described as your standard demo mode where one team has a bomb and the other tries to stop it from detonating.

There are classes to choose from including Scout, Engineer, and Rifleman, which you can level up, and weapons are upgradable for each loadout. That is not what I am going to be talking about right now though - but it is really cool to be able to do that.

Futuristic cover-based combat.

I am going to be talking about the multiplayer mechanics as a whole and why they are really, really bad. I hope a lot of changes are made before the final release of the game, otherwise I will be sticking to the co-op modes and rarely ever setting foot in these.

Future Soldier focuses a lot on the "future" aspect of war. You have multiple ways of finding out where the other team is and using technology to your advantage. While I appreciate the occasional method of rewarding a team by showing them their enemy for a time, I feel there are way too many opportunities and methods of doing this.

You can throw sensor grenades to see if there are enemy soldiers there. You can stun an enemy soldier, hack his suit, and then see where his whole team is. You can even set up a tiny camera that will tell you when someone walks by it. Call of Duty rewarded you for doing a good job with this perk. In Ghost Recon, after you reach a certain level or have the gear, you can use it instantly and completely annihilate the other team.


I have been on both sides of this. I have seen my team crush another when we knew exactly where they were and ripped them apart. I have also seen five of my team get blown to bits by a single grenade because a sensor grenade showed them all holding a single position close together. It is a good mechanic, I just think it has the ability to be so overly used that it will become not as exciting as it is meant to be and a complete and total cheat.


This game is all about teamwork. If you don't have that, if you and your team are incapable of actually speaking to each other or knowing the basics of covering someone when they go to an objective, you are completely screwed. Just pack it in. Seriously.

Team up or get taken out.

Multiplayer here is not for the lone wolves. You will get hunted down and massacred that way. On the flip side, if you and your team can successfully coordinate your efforts you will do absolutely grand. 9 times out of 10 I have been on teams where I will go and try to complete an objective and will get shot from three different directions with my team nowhere near the target. However, the best games have been me trying to protect someone three other guys trying to complete the task at hand with a huge map-wide firefight occurring, which is incredible.


There is also a definite separation between characters who have very powerful weapons and those with low starter weapons. This is common in all shooters' multiplayer games that have a tiered weapon reward system. Ghost Recon just seems to be that the better the gun is, the less shots it takes to kill a person. Not to mention clothing upgrades and whatnot.


The absolute worst part of the game had to be the tactical spawning. This has been used in other games with widely varying degrees of success. Three times I spawned with a guy that was labeled "Out of Combat" and "Ready," and as soon as I spawned someone turned the corner and blew us away.


There is far too much going on in Ghost Recon to accurately assume it is safe for you to spawn with a teammate unless they are they are a few meters away from a spawn point or you know for a fact that the area is cleared. Otherwise, just stick to the spawn point.

It felt a little bit like mobile spawn camping. A sniper could, in theory, have someone in his sights and then see someone spawn behind that person and take both of them out. Or a person could see another player, wait for a person to spawn, and then shoot them for the double kill bonus. It's just a little ridiculous.


I'm saddened that Ubisoft didn't let us play any of the co-op modes in the beta, and equally saddened by the maddening meat-grinder that multiplayer seems to be. I will continue to play it as it is, and will test out the complete version when the game launches. Hopefully it will be better, but if it isn't that will definitely hurt the score.