That, and the controls feel very unresponsive, almost floaty, and there is something wrong with the FOV i think, at least i find it hard to negotiate the environment.It's not a bad game, it's just not a ghost recon.
I might give the same rant every now and then, that's only because i still feel it's true"I'm playing a POS blablabla" the same rant on every thread lol. Except you left out the part of the sentence that mattered: If you didn't want to play a near future tactical shooter with some "high tech" in it you shouldn't play it because you knew what you were getting. But wow, you play through both games even though you hate them? You're either pretty strange or rather you actually did enjoy them to some extent and won't admit it because you just can't get over the fact that boo-hoo they are not like the first ghost recons. So satellite tracking systems are too arcadey for you... in a near future shooter... okay. Bet your're a really seasoned vet then.
You run into open RPG fire it's your fault. The game always gives you a fair set of options to get through the objectives. It's not a sandbox game like Flashpoint and it never pretended to be. Especially part two has some very open maps where you can just roam around and finish objectives in the order you decide, though.
Suppression works nice and isn't some kind of strange number game like in that WW2 shooter (forgot the name, they all sound the same).
Maybe you should practice more because the AI teammates are really predictable and work very well if you care to actually put some effort into it. They are much more useful than the ones in your praised ArmA are. They never get killed unless you use them extremely recklessly, except for the final mission of part 2 that is somewhat unfair.