What constitutes "Ubisoftization," in a game? City took the stuff like the Riddler trophy side quest from Asylum, made each of them an actual spatial puzzle to reach, gave it a gameplay loop (seek out Riddler henchman, solve death trap and save hostage) culminating in a substantive, personal ending rather than a remote sound file. Each trophy in Asylum is only ever just of the beaten path, behind a vent or destructible wall, and its only advantage over City is that it's ostensibly shorter (though the Asylum is so segmented, getting around by running trough empty hallways certainly felt like it took a long time). City has more side quests and while many are somewhat throwaway, they're optional and provide world-building. It's hard to hold that against the game when the core missions amount to a compatable length experience as Asylum. If improvement over a predecessor is "Ubisoftization" then so be it. Everything in the core game was stuff built on from Asylum, and the bigger hub world (not a big sprawling Assassin's Creed map) did not shift the gameplay loop from Asylum'sthe main game's still "fight guys, use predator stealth, traversal, repeat" with improvements and the option to tackle side missions Riddler stuff. It made use of its overworld, something Asylum also did, but in a less realized way.
Knight locks its epilogue behind side quest completion, but it's normal ending as conclusive as Asylum's ("and the adventure continues").
Asylum also locks the sole interesting twist to its story behind a side quest (the
warden being insane and potentially having released the inmates
, a nod to the comic A Serious House on Serious Earth), and considering how lean the game is overall, it really could've benefitted from having something not terrible in its final stretch (especially following a plot that spun its wheels thoughout with nothing more than being a step behind Joker the whole time and titan crap). Compared to Knight's final stretch, even before the 100% ending, Asylum's is a complete let-down in every way with nothing substantive occurring. Origins has an an actual appropriate final joker confrontation, and closer to what I'd hope for future games.
City, Origins and Knight do what Asylum did, yet betterif Asylum "did nothing wrong," it's because it barely did anything, and was then surpassed. Which, again, is as it should be.
Regardless of personal taste and preference, it's very clear Rocksteady set out to make games more like City and Knight rather than like Asylum because they went on to make those gamesthe repetitiveness of Asylum and it being confined to narrow paths and indoor locations despite Batman having a grapnel and ability to glide always suggested they wanted to open things up, and that's what they did, making the Batman-simulator experience more complete with each game. They end their first game with him flying toward Gotham, showing what they hoped to one day reach. No matter how much one values Asylum's surface Metroid imitation over the gameplay of the series, it doesn't change that Rocksteady's ambitions were made clear with its sequels, and that Asylum was only ever a starting point, an appropriate way to contexualize their, at the time, budding and limited gameplay systems.
Whole heartedly agree.
And i don't see where people get this idea of Asylum being oh so intricately well designed, when the areas are pretty fucking simple, usually relying a bunch on just the usual vents and gargoyles... which City is also doing, since it does have "dungeons" with a more linear design, same with Origins.
Asylum wasn't all that special or expertly designed, especially compared to the sequels, which did all it did, but better, while adding more interesting stuff.
Plus being a predator in the open city did a lot to fulfill that Batman fantasy, too.
Far Cry 2 plays a lot like a tech demo for what the Far Cry series came to be. It is a great game, and even does things better, such as destructible environments (to a degree) and a better weather system.
Seeing Far Cry 4 be so stale by comparison is even more glaring considering how much potential the CryEngine was showing 8 years ago.
It really, really, REALLY isn't. Way more focused and lack of open world meant everything was quite a bit more polished.
Edit: going through your thread and other posts... you do realize most of your pros regarding the sequels are highly subjective, don't you? No one's refuting your points because they're entirely down to preference, none of them are objectively better one way or another.
Some people are saying Asylum Is better, or saying that it's a ridiculous to suggest otherwise, but are making no attempt to back up their assetions beyond the vague "it's tighter/more focused" comments. And I would agree whether stuff is good or bad can be subjective, but there's not much subjective about what Rocksteady focused their efforts on ieratIng on and what areas in their Batman formula that they expanded.
The aspect most relevant to the thread is being ignored (though I should've had this more front and center from the beginning): Asylum plays like a test for the more fleshed out entries in the serieswe have Rocksteady's sequels improving and interating on everything from Asylum except for making it a true Metroid-like (or at least more like one)they clearly wanted to set their game in more open city areas because that's what they went on to do. City was a contrived setup and a half step to having all the gameplay of Asylum set against a cityscape and Knight was the realization of a full city that accommodated the predator gameplay and traversal from previous games. If Asylum wasn't just a test or a convenient way to have good reason to not have Barman in Gotham, their sequels would've moved beyond that type of setup (even though that structure is a superficial distinction when comparing the first two games when looking st their main mission strings).
What constitutes "Ubisoftization," in a game? City took the stuff like the Riddler trophy side quest from Asylum, made each of them an actual spatial puzzle to reach, gave it a gameplay loop (seek out Riddler henchman, solve death trap and save hostage) culminating in a substantive, personal ending rather than a remote sound file.
This is one of those things where you are probably never going to convince anyone to change their opinion. From my point of view, whilst I understand folks preferring the structure of the later games; I found the psuedo-openworld nature of City to be little more than bloat in between the part of the game I was actually interested in playing - all the Riddler puzzles started to feel obtrusive after a point, and I didn't particularly enjoy the process of navigating Gotham after a point. That they doubled down on a lot of this stuff has actively kept me away from Knight
Boss encounters aside, most of the negatives you list against Asylum are the things I enjoy about it - I like the brevity and the more focused nature, and some of the limitations of the combat didn't bother me as I generally treat each encounter room as a puzzle with limited options.
That being said, I think Asylum is way too polished, complete and robust a game to particularly be called anything like a "test" for the later games. The changes from Asylum to City then Knight are just natural sequel progression. Asylum really has no place in this thread.
Asylum is way too polished, complete and robust a game to particularly be called anything like a "test" for the later games. The changes from Asylum to City then Knight are just natural sequel progression. Asylum really has no place in this thread.
well that is what most new IPs from big developers are. THey have money for marketing, so they can basically start from a good idea, develop a game that will sell well due to the marketing, and then they can release the second improved version of it with loads of more features, but keeping the original idea and its basics.
Ultra Street Fighter 4 added a separate mode called "Omega Mode" where every character was changed significantly and given new moves. It is obvious now that this was a testing environment for Street Fighter 5's gameplay, as they share many similarities.
That's on me for not being more concise in the OP, but there have been some great examples nevertheless. Lots of Rockstar games, or the Starfox predecessor.
Ultra Street Fighter 4 added a separate mode called "Omega Mode" where every character was changed significantly and given new moves. It is obvious now that this was a testing environment for Street Fighter 5's gameplay, as they share many similarities.
As much as this game gets shit on (I've enjoyed it), the tech behind it is pretty fascinating. Hello Game's continued support of the game, despite low player count, works two-fold - its a test bed for new ideas (any and all development of the tech is useful for them), plus they can hopefully deliver on the game's initial promise and reward players still playing.
The fact that they didn't try to incorporate any of the systems/mechanics from that game into Persona 5 was a little bit disappointing. The texting system of Catherine in particular could've been a very fun thing in Persona 5.
This is one of those things where you are probably never going to convince anyone to change their opinion. From my point of view, whilst I understand folks preferring the structure of the later games; I found the psuedo-openworld nature of City to be little more than bloat in between the part of the game I was actually interested in playing - all the Riddler puzzles started to feel obtrusive after a point, and I didn't particularly enjoy the process of navigating Gotham after a point. That they doubled down on a lot of this stuff has actively kept me away from Knight
Boss encounters aside, most of the negatives you list against Asylum are the things I enjoy about it - I like the brevity and the more focused nature, and some of the limitations of the combat didn't bother me as I generally treat each encounter room as a puzzle with limited options.
That being said, I think Asylum is way too polished, complete and robust a game to particularly be called anything like a "test" for the later games. The changes from Asylum to City then Knight are just natural sequel progression. Asylum really has no place in this thread.
Whether something is an improvement is subjective, and I try to avoid using that word in lieu of being more specific, but a lot of the elements of Asylum were carried over to City and beyond, and were fleshed out or augmented in some way. People may not like how more complicated fights or predator segments could get, but all aspecta of the gameplay itself had what would generally be considered improvements made to them, and even when limiting oneself in City/Knight to the abilities available in Asylum during, say, a predator sequence (in comparable conditions with normal enemies, enclosed space, etc.), it would be just as good.
For example, collectibles that don't require varied methods, challenges or puzzles to reach are just boring after a while. I don't mind those collectibles existence since I can usually abandon them, and Asylum's were that for me. It just got boring by the end. City had tent pole events throughout the sidequest with villain-appropriate hostage situation and puzzle traps. It was way more engaging for me to have to save people and interrogate henchmen while also solving more substantial puzzles throughout. I definitely liked it more, and even if I didn't, I wouldn't be able to say the devs didn't refine upon what they did beforeit's clear one was made after the other, and one feels like a test for the later one.
Again, you're right that all that being a positive is subjective, yet it still shows Asylum was a testing ground for building a playable Batmanit doesn't have to be tech demo-level to be considered a test.
asylum was also the first really good 3D, fully realized playable Batman experience. It really had to prove itself, something I liken to a test. It definitely passed, and Rocksteady would go on to build upon their clear "Batman simulator" goals.
Asylum being polished/complete, and being a "test run" doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Like in the OP, the Stuntman game was a (brutally hard) complete game that could be considered a test of the physics/engine for Driver 3. Same with the open ended nature of A Link Between Worlds as a test of sorts for Breath of the Wild. Asylum was a AAA licensed game being sold to the public, so it stands to reason it would be polished.
Whole heartedly agree.
And i don't see where people get this idea of Asylum being oh so intricately well designed, when the areas are pretty fucking simple, usually relying a bunch on just the usual vents and gargoyles... which City is also doing, since it does have "dungeons" with a more linear design, same with Origins.
Asylum wasn't all that special or expertly designed, especially compared to the sequels, which did all it did, but better, while adding more interesting stuff.
Plus being a predator in the open city did a lot to fulfill that Batman fantasy, too.
I agree about Asylum's design. I don't even think it's bad, just mostly fine and serviceable. Comparing it to any other successful 3D Metroid-Like makes it pale in comparison for me.
Isn't Persona 3 and 4's relationship is pretty much the exact opposite of what this thread is about since P4 reused a ton of shit from P3 because they didn't have the money to make an honest upgrade from the third game?
Nope it wasn't. State of Decay was Class 3. Class 4, the game they were making Class 3 as a precursor to, was to be an MMO. That changed after SoD release to SoD 2
Ultra Street Fighter 4 added a separate mode called "Omega Mode" where every character was changed significantly and given new moves. It is obvious now that this was a testing environment for Street Fighter 5's gameplay, as they share many similarities.
Most recently, isn't this basically what the Kingdom Hearts 2.8 game is supposed to be?
A weird one is actually Wii Sports Resort -> LoZ Skyward Sword. The former was a test for motion+ applications, most of which went on to be used in Skyward Sword since it was like the one motion+ game Nintendo developed and really put effort into.
I think the first Zone of the Enders was this? But I'm not sure.
Arkham Asylum is worse than its follow ups, which it should be.
Aslyum is a completely linear game with know pathfinding needed of the playerit's Metroid-lite at most.
Its sequels/prequels played comprehensively better with improvements top-to-bottom to stealth and combat, had better/more realized boss encounters (Asylum's are trash), had progression in basic enemy abilities/weapons/types throughout each game, offered more greater choice in regard to individual encounters, and so on.
Asylum laid good groundwork for subsequent games, and at the time it was impressivethat can't be taken away from it. It's linearity (with faux Metrodvania sense of progression), extreme repetitiveness/recycling (titan thug = Bane, all fights are the same, predator rooms only get one additional modifier later on and are the same otherwise), and the abysmal final encounter from a gameplay perspective and a thematic one can no longer be overshadowed by what it did well when what it did in regard to realizing a playable 3D Batman was surpassed completely.
Maybe not the perfect answer for your question but it seems as though many of the things added to FFXV in the last year are clear examples of "let's test for future iterations"
So many people in this thread taking sequels and just saying the first game was a test for the sequel. Obviously not the case for most of these as the sequel only came out because the first game was popular, there was probably not even an idea for the sequels till the first game came out.
For example Metropolis street racer > project Gotham racing was not a test, MSR was its own game made for the dreamcast first and foremost.
Had you said and Gran Turismo prologue game to its full fledge brother however you'd be right as they were made as cut down tests to get some money in, gain experience and feedback.
Another good example not already listed would be Every Extend which was a small demo game on pc that was really just a proof of concept. Of course it became E4 and other versions which changed quite a few aspects but kept the core gameplay.
King of Fighters 12 really feels like a test run for 13, the game was very barebones, and it was weird on how quick they will develop 13 barely a year after releasing 12, while changing almost everything except animations
What's weird is that nobody noticed the finicky controls and incredibly exacting demands that suited, or at least didn't significantly detract from, a stuntman simulator would make for a disastrously frustrating open world crime sim.
