My biggest surprise entering this thread was learning that there are players thinking that Wildlands is better than breakpoint. Like what?!
You can be mad all you want towards Ubisoft and the way they are handling the game post-release, but let's not be crazy and say that the first game was in any way better than it's sequel.
I just bought the game in the latest sale on PSN, and after having completed the 3rd act of the main mission, I for sure think it's miles better than wildlands. The gameplay alone is leaps and bounds better.
The few things Breakpoint does better are negated by the terribly implemented, superficial, completely undesired RPG elements, and the lack of meaningful improvements in key areas. The driving is better? Maybe, but frankly, it's still shit. The game shipped with bugs that were already fixed in Wildlands for god's sake. The AI was improved in a stealth scenario, but in a going loud scenario it was somehow.... worse. The story, despite being hyped up as "dramatically improved", as Ubi even casted Jon Bernthal to play the villain, was fucking terrible anyway. Better than the first? Shit.... I don't even think that. See, the first game has the most vanilla story of all time, but at least the game knew how to get to the point. In Breakpoint, there's just so much completely uninteresting, meandering dialogue. Even dialogue choices at times, but why? Who even wanted that?
The RPG bloat just felt like bait for microtransactions, because it sure as shit didn't feel like it added anything interesting to the gameplay. At least with something like AC Odyssey, which also got accused for leveraging its RPG elements for microtransactions, felt like it was actually developed with the RPG elements as its core design element. With Breakpoint, it just felt tacked on. People were arguing what enemy levels actually affect because it was so unclear from the actual gameplay. Also, adding a bunch of bullet sponge machine enemies is probably the last thing anyone wanted.
Oh, and the game also shipped with no AI teammates. I have no idea if they have been added yet, but come on. Obviously these games are intended to play in coop, but taking away the feeling of being in a squad, is just a really bone headed move. There should have been an option to rely on squadmates or just go lone wolf mode with assist drones from the start.
And then there's the game world - no doubt that Breakpoint's world can look incredible, but it's got nowhere near the grounded, lived in feel of Bolivia. A massive step back if you ask me.
Wildlands was nowhere near the perfect game, but it was easily the best base clearing coop game. And it still is, I'd say.
"Wildlands PVP is worlds better"
Oh here we go, let's just judge a whole game based on it's pvp, even though the game is meant to be experienced as a coop PVE in the first place.
I have not played the PVP in either game. When I judge a game, I do so with the intent of playing the game the way it's first meant to be played. A pvp mode in itself isn't even something I'd usually recommend unless it's game is geared towards it in the first place, which breakpoint isnt.
"worlds better" hehe, that's funny considering PVE has a huge world to kick around in and do activities in, whereas PVP...
Your attitude to people replying to your post is leaving a lot to be desired, honestly.... PVP was a hugely praisd aspect of Wildlands. I haven't played it myself, but I've seen lots being disappointed with the Breakpoint implementation.
