Support NeoGAF

[Taliban Stan]

They don't make the type of games I play. In 3 generations, I've purchased like 3 Ubisoft games, two were from the same franchise. I don't really have any hate. They just aren't up my alley.

I will say though, thought it was funny when they have a female minority present their E3 show, have had female and minority characters as main charactes in games but were getting spun as this hyper racist company. This was like right around the time they made a game where you play as a Native American and they were catching flack from companies that have never had a minority or female main character in their 10+ year history as a game developer and press outlets like Giant Bomb that exclusively employed caucassion males.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Ok. Fake Spicer then. Deflecting, contorting, and dodging truths i defense of a company that CLEARLY has a track record of fucking it up

Again, stop comparing me to a white supremacist..

And yes, this isn't the first, not will it be the last thread where a dev is called out for re-using assets. Yes. I consider it lazy. Especially when it's right on the nose obvious.

Literally the only indication of height map reuse is vague shapes on the map. So let me get this straight, any asset re-use is lazy, even when you don't even know what a fucking height map is? Or how much of a previous project is brought over for sequel or new IP? The only person I see being lazy is the dude who's refusing to use critical thinking skills while calling nearly every prominent developer in the game's industry lazy. And a shit ton of other art industries as well.

What I also find concerning, is that I see you advocate for Social Justice here quite a bit, which I congratulate you for- but in that list of links, there's the story of Ubi failing to include a gender-diverse cast of players in Unity. LAZY. But I've not seen you mention anything about it.

First of all, there is a gender diverse cast of characters in Unity, second of all, while I am all about inclusivity, I also am well aware of the realities of game development. NOT ONLY was the co-op in ACU never advertised as having four distinct characters, there's also the fact that they long clarified, (along with it being three fucking years so anyone who played the game should know this already), but you never see yourself as anyone but Arno, literally the only thing that changes on other players is the face model. So, every outfit in the game was designed very specifically with the model of Arno in mind, a broad shouldered male. the original statement implied that if they were to do it they'd rather do it right, (dedicating a long effort to it), instead of just having a female avatar mirror that looks incredibly janky, (take for instance Elise whenever you morph into her character model with Arno's animation data). And just like AC:S having nowhere near the same depth and character customization focus as Unity because of having to split art assets between characters and due to the game being SP, they chose the most cost effective option. That being, not spending a shit ton of time working on female character mirrors and possibly some extra character animation that the player would literally never see for a shit ton of assets

or getting really janky results such as the character animation of Aveline De Grandpre AC:Liberation compared to Black Flag, Rogue, and the source, AC3, which only took a couple days work to save on costs and time. And that's without having to account for this all being solely in a network setting. And no I don't expect you to click on that video, so here's a gif.

Compared to what they did with For Honor, where it's not just character mirrors getting proper time for polish due to that game not having main characters but more so avatars but also stuff like walk cycles being unique. Or with literally the next game in the AC series. In a lot of instances with social issues, the realities of game development isn't the main thing holding representation back.

Meanwhile. If they had said something along the lines of "we should only being playing as a male in video games." Then you'd have a point. That's what the argument was 3 years ago and all of those points still stand. Meanwhile, I openly opposed the stupidity that is "30fps is more cinematic."

The running theme here, which I feel you're hinting at, but fail to address is Ubi's long history of doing dumb shit, getting criticized for it, and maybe possibly trying to change course. They seem consistent in that behavior.

No it's almost literally every Ubi thread being shit up by not only revisionist history but also by people who clearly have a bone to pick and nothing really relevant to say about the topic other than to remind us yet again that they don't like Ubi.

They seem to ignore any industry barometer, responds flippantly when met with criticisms, and then continues the trend, wash,rinse, repeat. ( kinda like my conversation with you)

So are AC:S, Far Cry Primal, For Honor, GR:W, and WD2 not vastly more blatantly inclusive than AC:Unity? Have they not made very blatant attempts to showcase games running on the target hardware instead of powerful PCs? Have they not made efforts not only to improve PC ports but also the quality of PC releases? The trend I see is people still being mad about things that happened years ago.

Again, credit where credit is due. They seem to be trying to get their act together. But forgive me if my trust is damaged, and I'm apprehensive to any new release from them.

And the point of the thread is, WE GET IT.

BOOM. There's that Press Secretary. That's not "revisionist history." It's Opinion. And dare I (me) say- fact. Especially with Splinter Cell. ��

Saying that they literally have not made any good games besides a couple platformers is revisionist history.

 

[legacyzero]

Snip: contortions

I mean, this entire post basically proved my point. So I can see there's no reasoning with you. I mean, I feel like I've been pretty fair to them, praising them for their recent successes and good deeds.

Agree to disagree I guess.

 

[joms5]

People didn't want Blacklist because it sucked. People didn't want Prince of Persia (the 2010 game that was sort of a tie-in to the movie) because it looked derivative. Rayman Legends came out nearly a year after it was supposed to and went multi-platform which made Wii U owners feel betrayed, especially since they got the worst version.

Wait.... what?! lol

The Wii U version was the definitive version of that game. And having played all versions of that game, the PS4 and Xbone versions don't even compare to the Wii U one. I would argue that almost all hold that same opinion too.

 

[Nabbis]

I don't really hate them but their AAA quality is similar to how processed food tastes most of the time, bland and filled with too much crap. I suppose it's fitting since the games are basically the game developing equivalent of a processed product.

 

[AaronMT86]

I don't hate them. I dislike their standard game formula. I dislike their Uplay client. I dislike their business decisions foremost.

 

[VeteranGamer]

I like their games

 

[Crossing Eden]

I mean, this entire post basically proved my point. So I can see there's no reasoning with you.

Yeaok.gif

You look up what a height map is yet? Seriously it's been months, if you're gonna call the majority of studios in the world lazy you might as well make the effort to do a google search....

 

[Sillverrr]

I've commented previously of my fatigue with regards Ubisoft's open world games.

AC2 felt fresh when I played it. The central story played heavily on the themes of family/revenge, echoed by the overarching plot of secret societies in eternal conflict. I felt this was a world worth investing in: a franchise with future potential.

Unfortunately, the series has limped on in its death throes, despite tieing up most earlier plot threads by the end of AC3. For several games now, the cities have expanded, the dotted collectibles taking over your map like an angry colony of ants; yet, there is increasingly little payoff to reward your actions.

Watch Dogs. Yes, I fell for the hype. Jim Sterling's video said it best, I feel, in bemoaning Ubisoft's liberal use of the word "iconic" when describing the central protagonist. Whose name I can't recall off the top of my head, which was exactly Jim's point.

Far Cry 3/4. Yeah, this series has fared slightly better than Assassin's Creed on a technical level, but it's still the same old formula with a different lick of paint each time. With Primal (which I haven't played) they sailed dangerously close to taking the piss. Should have been a budget-priced release, or a mod.

My point is that it feels as though Uibsoft doesn't care about its franchises. Instead, it has cheapened them and lessensed their impact through oversaturation. AC is taking a break. Will the next entry invalidate what has come before; all of those hours I invested in the lore and characters? Capcom has arguably done this with the Resident Evil franchise, and I haven't forgiven them their mishandling by purchasing the latest entry either.

 

[legacyzero]

Yeaok.gif

You look up what a height map is yet?

I don't feel the need to continue to reach for a middle ground in any effort when you're obviously not going to.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I don't feel the need to continue to reach for a middle ground in any effort when you're obviously not going to.

"Literally the majority of active game studios are lazy."
Excuse me if I can't find the middle ground in that logic.

 

[jennetics]

Remember when EA was named Worst Company in America? Ahead of companies like Bank of America and BP?

Kinda reminds me of that. Ubisoft is an easy target, same as Activision, and/or EA.

 

[Nabbis]

Remember when EA was named Worst Company in America? Ahead of companies like Bank of America and BP?

Kinda reminds me of that. Ubisoft is an easy target, same as Activision, and/or EA.

Yes, it certainly showed how much effect that title had when a video game company simply shrugged it off. Image the horror those banks must feel.

 

[legacyzero]

"Literally the majority of active game studios are lazy."
Excuse me if I can't find the middle ground in that logic.

Suit yourself?

Your quote there is not what I said at all. At least most devs make an effort to not be obvious about it. Ubisoft used AN ENTIRE GAME WORLD, and then retooled the height maps. Clever. But lazy IMO. Funny thing, opinions. They differ sometimes. You're not meant to agree all the time.

Your logic doesn't have to line up with anybody else, I guess. You keep fighting that good fight.

 

[jennetics]

Yes, it certainly showed how much effect that title had when a video game company simply shrugged it off. Image the horror those banks must feel.

Sorry if I didn't make make sense with the first post, I'm not saying that the title had any effect on these businesses one way or the other. I guess my point was that internet people can be petty and they tend to focus on all the "bad" that a company does ("bad" being non-comparable to actual bad companies like BoA/BP) while ignoring the decent stuff they've done.

 

[KORNdoggy]

Its not like i go out of my way to hate them, if they achieve something great, i will applaud them for it, but sadly they have a tendency to bring the hate on themselves. They have a very consistent output of titles, but i consider that level of quality to be quite low. They have all these chances to do great things with all the IP's under their belt, and yet they, as mentioned, consistently screw something up. Whether its big things like relying on the AC open world formula for every open world game they make. Or how elements from all their franchises tend to be shared between each other and merge to the point where nothing feels particularly new or unique. Or the performance issues across the board with a general lack of polish...Right down to small things, like fucking up how vehicles control in ghost recon, or not having a single player in rainbow six, or splinter cell conviction ruining the franchise.

And thats not even including their consistent BS surrounding the games they announce. From far cry to watchdogs to ghost recon and the division, they've all been graphically downgraded.

I used to love ubisoft back on PS2 and xbox. They were by far my favourite developer/publisher. And i think thats why there is maybe more dissapointment aimed their way than most others. I'm still waiting for that moment they come back and redeem themselves.

 

[Muninn]

Until the quality of Ubisoft games goes down drastically then they cannot ever be totally hated. They make way too many games that appeal to people.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

All I want is a new Prince of Persia series that's like the Sands of Time trilogy. I fucking hate how Ass Creed killed PoP.

Here's what would happen if Prince of Persia came out in 2017+

-DLC is announced before the game comes out

- Prince of Persia announced
[Game has multiplayer no-one asked for]
[Game has some of the most cringe worthy voice acting]
[Games story suck]
[Mechanics rarely progress]
[Missions]
[Way points]
[Points of Interest]
[Is more of a sandbox]
[Involves talking with random NPCs who feel completely removed from the world]
[What is a woman?]
[Bland protagonist]
[None of what made the original great is present]

- Prince of Persia base game - £40
(A shit ton of content removed)

- Steel tin edition -£60 (comes with a dagger, 2 extra capsules to hold more Sands of Time) and a Amazon/GAME/Brazzers skins depending on where you buy it from .

- Time Explorers edition - £150
Comes with some of the DLC and pre-order bonuses, a Dagger and and in game exclusive dagger and Prince skin.
[Featuring the Princes iconic Dagger]

- Time Explorers in Europe comes with an Extra DLC Mission but is exclusive to PS4
- Time Explorers in US/Can comes with an Extra DLC Mission and Skin for Both Systems
- Time Explorers in Japan comes with an Japanese VO and Ballsack Physics + Mission but is exclusive to Vita

* Buying the Season Pass is gets you:

• Access to a whole 7 new story missions
• A new scarf skin
• The warped dagger pack
• Access to timed missions 3 days early
• Access to more content within the gallery
• Yves Guillemot's Phone Number and Skype name

** PS4 Plus members
- They get the Sony Experience Pack where get to play as the Original Prince, Sand Wraith and that ugly caveman protagonist from the Wii version
(US Only)

*** Game has a Marketplace called Persian Market Stall:
Microtransactions - Purchase more sands for 0.79p
Online multiplayer - Player upgrades such as a skins, weapons and abilities

--------------------------------
Then the game comes out:

Complaints about faces on characters melting
Game chugs
PS4 Pro Users reporting that the game runs worse than PS4 version
30FPS with drops
Multiplayer does not work on launch
Game crashes
Game freezes
Always online
Game uses uPlay for you to play the game
DLC codes not working
Much of the games content was changed
Much of the scenes depicted in the E3 trailer have been removed or severely altered to be far less dramatic.
Graphics downgrade
Content shown in trailers has been repackaged as pre-order bonuses
Time Explorers replica Dagger is known to be falling from cheap stand

But the Marketplace, in game transactions, Season Pass and DLCs are working at launch with no issues.

@Has 86/100 on metacritic because people just accept this Ubisoft tripe
@Random controversy with a complimentary Jim Sterling video
@Despite people being burned by Ubisoft in nearly every game they release, they still by this expecting it to be different...for some reason.

This is more of a problem with the gaming industry but stop sucking off Ubisoft anyway. It doesn't benefit you, bro.

 

[Malakai]

That was a decade ago lol. Ubi has an almost 100% different brand now. Why would you choose that as an example in 2017 lol

That stuff that Ubisoft did with Nintendo's platform was extremely shortsighted and on the whole extremely poisonous for the industry overall. Yet, in 2010 and 2011 they threw a hiss-fit about how Nintendo gamers weren't buying their games anymore. Instead of looking at the trash they flooded Nintendo systems with and they went ahead and took the profits from those causal games to put into subsidizing 360 and PS3 development cost. They never put back that money into building in type of base on Nintendo platforms at that time. And don't even get started on the quality of their 3DS games....

 

[HF2014]

Beside Rayman, i just cant get into them. I think their games are extremely difficult to understand. When its not the interface, map layout design, or controls, there is always something that make me see their games as not simple.

Oh, and if they could come up with more original titles, that would help too.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Suit yourself?

Your quote there is not what I said at all. At least most devs make an effort to not be obvious about it.

Same location on each map.

Ubisoft used AN ENTIRE GAME WORLD, and then retooled the height maps. Clever. But lazy IMO.

Because you genuinely don't know what a height map is for. There's literally nothing clever or unique about it. Just like there's nothing unique or clever about using procedural generation as a starting point for the creation of an open world. Or a standard base zbrush model to create variations of npcs.

Funny thing, opinions. They differ sometimes. You're not meant to agree all the time. Your logic doesn't have to line up with anybody else, I guess. You keep fighting that good fight.

It's more like I don't care for being insulted by being called lazy by someone who doesn't know wtf they're talking about. You realize your terrible logic applies to other industries outside of the gaming industry right?

 

[atr0cious]

I admire ubisoft's output in an industry dominated by blah, but uplay is a piece of shit, guaranteed to be down at least twice a month (which breaks all of their online only games and modes), and home to a website that is coded worse than the average Geocities page. Uplay for some reason can't even do everything through the client they force you to download, and it opens a browser page to their shitty site. Vivendi hopefully has a good plan to improve all that.

Also their qa is shit, and the terrible shit they did with the wii u port of blacklist is why i will continue to use discounted key sellers for their games.

 

[SomTervo]

Suit yourself?

Your quote there is not what I said at all. At least most devs make an effort to not be obvious about it. Ubisoft used AN ENTIRE GAME WORLD, and then retooled the height maps. Clever. But lazy IMO. Funny thing, opinions. They differ sometimes. You're not meant to agree all the time.

Your logic doesn't have to line up with anybody else, I guess. You keep fighting that good fight.

FYI I'm pretty sure Primal is the only example of the bolded from their entire catalogue. Most of their games have drastically different environments - if not mechanics, up til the last couple of years.

Uh and i heard the maps were pretty different in function, as Eden just clarified

 

[Muninn]

Yeah, Primal was just basically a game they thought could hit AAA status pricing while being a retooled version of what they had. Not a big deal at all. The price has dropped plenty since and will continue to do so.

Also, they still put a lot of work into that game. They can use base tools for every open world if they want to. That means nothing at all really.

I don't pay full price for these games unless I want to. Steep was the last Ubi game and I still got it on sale with the season pass. Amazing game too. Way underrated IMO with fantastic dev support so far.

 

[TheMissingLink]

I avoid any and all Ubisoft games.

They simply seem to be creating games to fill in a certain quota.

Their games just have to always tick a certain number of 'GAMER' boxes, it seems?

 

[SomTervo]

Honestly, almost every single post points back to some old game or some old framework for Uplay around 2013 or so when the service was new.

These people are really living in the past.

Totally.

1. The tragedy is that Ubisoft really fucked themselves from 2008-2013 with their game turnover and derivative mechanics/world design (on all their high profile titles I think) - and all the "haters" in this thread are just people who still feel burned by that. They really made a big mistake strategically.

However, things HAVE changed, and now people aren't giving Syndicate, WD2, Siege, For Honor, etc a fair rap because of the bad reputation among the 'core crowd

2. UPlay did used to be worse but the main beef with it is point #1. I use Uplay probably 5-10 hours a month and it's honestly fine. Not quite as good as Steam, but Steam is generally great.

 

[Tarextherex]

All I want is a new Prince of Persia series that's like the Sands of Time trilogy. I fucking hate how Ass Creed killed PoP.

Exactly this, I have little to no interest to their modern/current games, AssCreed was never actually good(2 was a 6/10 game AT BEST)

I feel their hate is extremely overblown on the Internet though, it's like once EA won the title of worst company hating on them was obvious, so Ubisoft became the target even though any other AAA publisher is guilty of the same things. It's especially bad when people say unsensitive shit about how they hope Vivendi gets them or wishing people to get fired smh

 

[icecold1983]

And if it's not that, it turns into the most blatant form of revisionist history concerning any discussion of a studio on this forum. For example, Waddle Dee's post.

you know to this day, you have never actually given your thought son ubisofts consistent use of 100% fake footage in gameworks trailers

 

[icecold1983]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YHR0seJDo0

the lols never stop! this level of jank actually makes me laugh watching videos of it

 

[Ludens]

I avoid any and all Ubisoft games.

They simply seem to be creating games to fill in a certain quota.

Their games just have to always tick a certain number of 'GAMER' boxes, it seems?

This. I used to love Ubisoft games back in days (Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, Rayman), but with Assassin's Creed (and I really liked the first Ac, it was something new) they started to make games which seem all the same. Open-world maps filled with collectibles and boring unlocks. I don't even talk about the irritating stuff they do with Collector's Edition.

 

[Muninn]

This. I used to love Ubisoft games back in days (Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia, Rayman), but with Assassin's Creed (and I really liked the first Ac, it was something new) they started to make games which seem all the same. Open-world maps filled with collectibles and boring unlocks. I don't even talk about the irritating stuff they do with Collector's Edition.

IDK man, The Crew and Steep are vastly different. Child of Light and Valiant Hearts are gems. And then you have Raymans and the big open world games. Watch Dogs 2 is pretty amazing to me. As they polish it up it just becomes better and better. Far Cry is probably the one that is getting a bit old but 4 was solid for sure.

There are a couple others that are cool. Just because something is open world doesn't make it bad.

AC I don't play because yes there are just too damn many of them.

 

[UrbanRats]

Ubisoft is a big international company out to make money, like any other big gaming publisher, that's about the extent of their "culpability".
Hating on them is a meme at this point, reinforced by a dose of confirmation bias.

I mean hating on stuff like UPlay, when every other big company has the same shit (Origin, Blizzard, R*, etc etc) shows what i mean.
Bullshot is another example, From fucking Sofware always released shameless bullshots and bullshot videos, everybody does, Ubisoft just got made an example out of (which is fine, it's fine to blast them for their bullshit, just don't go on pretenting they invented that shit).

The open world formula thing is another, they did have a stretch in time when they released a lot of games sharing some design elements (i think this was blown out of proportion, btw) and that soured people, but it's hardly as true now, and games like Horizon would absolutely be the butt of the joke if they were from Ubisoft, since they feature the same exact formula, same for the Arkham games, same for Max Max and Just Cause.
Open World games have a lot of design elements that many don't like, it's hardly anything to do with "towers", and more to do with a gameplay loop YOU don't find interesting, and especially, hardly an exclusive of Ubisoft games.

EA is shit, Take Two is shit, Square Enix is shit, Sony is shit, Microsoft is shit... Oh, Zelda has towers now, Nintendo is shit.

Ubisoft aren't saints, they're shit, they're a big company trying to make a buck anyway they can, like the rest of them, no more, no less.

 

[MrCinos]

They've lost me because all major titles of theirs are region-locked and language-locked. Far Cry, Heroes of Might and Magic, Assassin Creed, Watch Dogs 2, etc. are not available with English language on Steam in my region.

I'm glad such backwards policy isn't very widespread with other companies present on Steam.

 

[FrozenCell]

Not much to hate on - I've only bought like half of their games http://store.steampowered.com/search/?publisher=Ubisoft&os=linux

 

[Rickenslacker]

I've never hated them, just wasn't really interested in most of the stuff they've been pumping out for a few years when they became real sequel churners. Prior to a month ago the only Ubisoft published games I had in the last handful of years were Driver: San Francisco, Call of Juarez: Gunslinger, Grow Home, Rayman: Origins, and Far Cry 3 (of which I found super bland after coming from Far Cry 2). Their recent output and their change to having more long-term support for titles has gotten me way more interested in their stuff though, I've had a blast with The Division and its DLC, just splurged on Rainbow Six Siege, and everything I've seen of For Honor has me pretty interested in it -- except for the beta which has refused to work because of some false positive result in the anti-cheat they use leaving me completely unable to play it.

 

[Alpende]

I usually post that I'm cautious about buying new Ubisoft games because they are Ubisoft games. Mostly because of their open world formula. It's lazy and boring. I do agree that they release all kinds of different stuff and that's great. I pre-ordered South Park but that's mainly because of Matt and Trey's involvement and the praise the first game got. This has been said in this tread but my trust in them has diminished to a very low point. After The Division and Assassin's Creed I'm not gonna get their games on day one anymore apart from something like South Park.

I really hope they make another Splinter Cell and I hope they don't decide to open world it. Just go back to the stealthy roots of the series.

 

[Iamcorrupt]

A friend of mine has this totally bizarre hatred of Ubi, he generally calls them "a bunch of goofy french fucks".

Honestly I don't get it.

 

[Pandaman]

Uplay doesn't bother me that much. It doesn't cause problems like origin and has at least figured out the value of keys. Plus I really like the upoints system giving a 20% discount and that they will still sell games on steam. In the world of steam-clones its biggest offence seems to be that you still need it when you buy through steam.

Their games are hit and miss, but they consistently hit pc and they seem to be willing to gamble on a big new IP once a year. Sure some of their games have very serious problems, but if you treat them as a 'wait a week' developer you're unlikely to be burned.

 

[UrbanRats]

A friend of mine has this totally bizarre hatred of Ubi, he generally calls them "a bunch of goofy french fucks".

Honestly I don't get it.

He sounds like a moron.

 

[Ludens]

IDK man, The Crew and Steep are vastly different. Child of Light and Valiant Hearts are gems. And then you have Raymans and the big open world games. Watch Dogs 2 is pretty amazing to me. As they polish it up it just becomes better and better. Far Cry is probably the one that is getting a bit old but 4 was solid for sure.

There are a couple others that are cool. Just because something is open world doesn't make it bad.

AC I don't play because yes there are just too damn many of them.

Yeah, both Rayman games are good and Valiant Hearts too, but those are the exceptions I think. They are much smaller projects compared to where Ubi likes to put money (Far Cry, AC etc).

 

[Mega Caprison]

edit

trying to attach youtube


Downgrading on GR Wildland

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mBGHi...BlKSoBGKBBjdCxsVWmtbxvmJalVM9YZKOTXQ71qCtS2pw

 

[Dandy Lyin]

I don't hate Ubisoft, I just never get excited for their games. They aren't bad, usually, but I only pick them up when they are deeply discounted.

 

[Zyrox]

Don't hate Ubisoft, they just make games I'm not really interested in and/or find boring. Betas of The Division and Ghost Recon Wildlands didn't do much for me for instance and what I've played of various Assassin's Creed's bored me to tears.

I do love For Honor though, that game is right up my alley, so there's that.

 

[icecold1983]

edit

trying to attach youtube


Downgrading on GR Wildland

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mBGHi...BlKSoBGKBBjdCxsVWmtbxvmJalVM9YZKOTXQ71qCtS2pw

in b4

"thats just a different TOD and art changes. the game looks as good or better than the reveal"

 

[ldcommando]

Hate is too strong of a word.
I play their games that I like.
Avoid the ones that I don't like.
It's not that difficult.

With South park they have me by the balls though. Stupid delays.

 

[Bold One]

- Their games are not very good
- Their AAA games are way too samey
- They popularized the bland, paint-by-numbers AAA open-world game that's fucking everywhere (and is fucking terrible)
- They have a long history of bullshitting about their games (bullshots, fake MP video footage, downgrades, and even reverse bullshots)
- Releasing pathetically unfinished games like AC: Unity
- Ridiculously long credits (seriously, fuck off)
- Aisha Tyler
- uPlay
- Their games are really just not very good

Yeah, I don't care for Ubisoft and I honestly do understand the hate, sorry OP. I like Rayman Legends and Valiant Hearts, but that's about it.

let's leave Aisha Tyler out of this


Ubisoft is best when they leave their conveyer belt AAA open world BS behind

Valiant Hearts was wonderful

The best game they have ever made is still Prince of Persia Sands of TIme

 

[Truant]

I don't mind them, unless they're at their most offensive (Unity era). They're one of a few major AAA developers that still put out meaty 30 hour single player games.

 

[icecold1983]

I don't mind them, unless they're at their most offensive (Unity era). They're one of a few major AAA developers that still put out meaty 30 hour single player games.

30 hours if you count mind numbing collectathons where you do the exact same thing over like a hundred times for 25 hours. thats not meaty

 

[EmiPrime]

Ubisoft are the only major western third party publisher who consistently try new things. The way some people go on about it you'd think open world games with the AC formula was the only thing they put out.

Their games go down in price really quickly and are discounted seemingly every week on PSN, you can get a whole lot of game for very little money. They've also become very good at supporting their games post-release.

 

[UrbanRats]

30 hours if you count mind numbing collectathons where you do the exact same thing over like a hundred times for 25 hours. thats not meaty

As opposed to... every other open world action adventure? Just Cause, Mad Max, the Batman Arkham games, Shadow of Mordor, Xenoblade Chronicle X, etc etc.
Horizon will likely be the s<me (already confirmed to have towers and collecthaton and crafting), same for Zelda.
What about Saint's Row, Sleeping Dogs, and all the other open world action adventure games structured around a repeating loop? Make that all of them, or near all of them.

Clearing the map off of clutter or repeating the copy pasted activities is not something exclusives to Ubisoft games at all.

Even an excellent open world RPG like Witcher has a lot of repeating "witcher sense to destination and kill monster" shit, even though expertly dressed up with good writing.