Support NeoGAF

[Rokal]

I buy hundreds of games each year, from major publishers and indie teams alike, but I had to look at a "titles released by year" wikipedia list for Ubisoft to see when the last time I actually bought one of their games was. I picked up South Park Stick of Truth in 2014 and before that the last Ubisoft game I bought was AC3 in 2012. Calling South Park an Ubitsoft game feels a bit generous too, as it was technically a THQ game that they scooped up for cheap during THQ's bankruptcy auction, but had nothing to do with greenlighting.

Other than those two titles, I haven't bought a single Ubisoft game in 5+ years. Their entire output is Tom Clancy games and bloated paint-by-numbers open world snorefests. Looking at a map screen from Watch Dogs or any of the AC games from the last 5 years makes me feel immediate revulsion. They long ago gave up on any pretense of "quality over quantity". Likewise, they gave up on telling interesting stories some time ago, instead preferring safer narratives that lend themselves to an endless parade of sequels (AC3's conclusion to Desmond's story is the most obvious example of this, but even before then they were milking their franchises dry).

I played Grow Home when it was a free PS+ game, and it was okay albeit unpolished, but even that game as an example of Ubisoft's willingness to do small experimental games is disingenuous. The dev team had to make the game in secret on a shoestring budget, and only showed it to Ubisoft once it was more than halfway complete (source). They don't take new risks, they play it safer than any publisher besides Activision.

 

[Rokal]

Edit: Double post. Here are some beautiful recent Ubisoft Open World maps instead.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I buy hundreds of games each year, from major publishers and indie teams alike, but I had to look at a "titles released by year" wikipedia list for Ubisoft to see when the last time I actually bought one of their games was. I picked up South Park Stick of Truth in 2014 and before that the last Ubisoft game I bought was AC3 in 2012. Calling South Park an Ubitsoft game feels a bit generous too, as it was technically a THQ game that they scooped up for cheap during THQ's bankruptcy auction, but had nothing to do with greenlighting.

Other than those two titles, I haven't bought a single Ubisoft game in 5+ years. Their entire output is Tom Clancy games and bloated paint-by-numbers open world snorefests. Looking at a map screen from Watch Dogs or any of the AC games from the last 5 years makes me feel immediate revulsion. They long ago gave up on any pretense of "quality over quantity". Likewise, they gave up on telling interesting stories some time ago, instead preferring safer narratives that lend themselves to an endless parade of sequels (AC3's conclusion to Desmond's story is the most obvious example of this, but even before then they were milking their franchises dry).

I played Grow Home when it was a free PS+ game, and it was okay albeit unpolished, but even that game as an example of Ubisoft's willingness to do small experimental games is disingenuous. The dev team had to make the game in secret on a shoestring budget, and only showed it to Ubisoft once it was more than halfway complete (source). They don't take new risks, they play it safer than any publisher besides Activision.

So basically you have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't played their games at all but instead looked at a bunch of map screens and expect us to take you seriously? For fuck sake For Honor literally just had an open beta this weekend. How is making a contemperary shooter in an era of sci-fi not an inherent risk? How is funding a title like Beyond Good and Evil 2, a sequel to a very old game that didn't sell very well not a risk? Regarding your edit above, do you even have ANY idea what any of those symbols actually mean?

 

[Rokal]

So basically you have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't played their games at all but instead looked at a bunch of map screens and expect us to take you seriously?

I played a bunch of Ubisoft games in Gen 7. Why would I buy another Assassin's Creed game at this point, or any of their other games that heavily borrow the same formula? I don't need to spend any of my time or money to know that I have 0 interest in playing yet another AC game.

For fuck sake For Honor literally just had an open beta this weekend.

For Honor actually looks pretty cool, and I'll given them credit for trying something new here. It's not my cup of tea, but from playing the Beta earlier today it was clear that they put a lot of effort into a pretty risky idea here.

How is funding a title like Beyond Good and Evil 2, a sequel to a very old game that didn't sell very well not a risk?

Beyond Good and Evil 2 is vaporware as far as I'm concerned. You can hold your breath for a sequel to a game that came out and underperformed 14 years ago, but there has been no significant news on it in quite a while. The safe assumption is that it's not under full production right now and possibly never will be.

Regarding your edit above, do you even have ANY idea what any of those symbols actually mean?

See above: I've played plenty of AC, Farcry, and other boring Openworld Ubisoft games. The icons all represent a wide variety of things: safehouses, enemy encampments, sidequests, collectibles, etc. The sum of their parts would be "uncompelling open world shit that you've already done in any other game within this franchise/formula" however.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I played a bunch of Ubisoft games in Gen 7. Why would I buy another Assassin's Creed game at this point, or any of their other games that heavily borrow the same formula? I don't need to spend any of my time or money to know that I have 0 interest in playing yet another AC game.

Because they have done quite a lot to change the formula. For instance, AC3's campaign and mechanics are incredibly restrictive in terms of what the player is able to do, the former due to linearity to the point of frustration since failure can occur when you even slightly go off script not unlike Uncharted, and the latter due to gameplay mechanics being based solely on context, (enemies literally have unlimited health unless the player finishes a combo, uses a tool, or gets a counter kill). Even free aim didn't exist in the series at that point. And parkour was simplified to be much more contextual, despite there being more variety in the scenarios like different jumping distances, this was limiting. So overall the player had very little in the way of agency during the core gameplay in the majority of scenarios outside of how they choose to approach forts and some missions in the campaign. Now just to boil these things down:
-Stealth was contextual, the player couldn't even crouch
-Parkour was contextual instead of manual
-despite the many tools for combat enemies
-Missions were linear
-Players couldn't go where they want in the open world unless the story deemed it possible

Meanwhile, AC's core game design philosophy has done a literal 180 on those things completely, starting with BF's extensive open world that was completely open from the very start but not being fully realized AC:Unity's gameplay mechanics and core mission design. Instead of a scripted linear campaign and gameplay based almost solely on contexts, nearly every mission in the game contains a scenario which can be completed in nearly anyway the player chooses. Whether it's the approach due to how large the play spaces are, one of the best examples of this is the game's first assassination mission. Like, a player could follow that path in that demo, or take completely different routes, or hell, even jump off the top of Notre Dame to get air assassinate the target. Or anything in between those two extremes, the game keeps going. So that completely goes against AC3's cinematic linear style of mission design. Meanwhile, the parkour too, is based much more on manual input from the player instead of based on context. I made this post a while back detailing this:

It's insane how much control you have in the last two AC games. Quick tips OP, pick and choose when to tap or hold X or O while running. DO NOT just hold X at all times. You need to think of the level design as a 3D space and constantly decide what move to make next to keep your momentum going.

This is just using R2

This is what happens if you hold R2+X after as you're swinging from the first monkey bar

This is what happens if you hold R2+O as you swing from the first monkey bar

A bit more complex.
This is what happens if you hold R2+X for the first jump and then hold O as you grab the monkey bar followed by double tapping O to roll, which negates fall damage.

And this is what happens if you slide and use the parkour down control followed by just holding R2

Always remember that R2+O while running=vaulting to get over obstacles to keep your momentum going

You'll notice in all of these gifs that he's stopping on a dime as soon as the player lets go of the controls too instead of walking forward a little bit like in say GTA, the game absolutely has very little animation priority and will even interrupt finishing moves for a parry. They absolutely depend on you to be able to think on your feet, (or like an assassin), to figure out what to press at what time in order to make an escape, cross a rooftop, or close the distance between yourself and a target.

So the problem isn't necessarily the controls OP.

So parkour is based not solely on context but on how well the player understands the controls. And this isn't even without getting into how this extends to other aspects of AC, like the level design incorporating many more interiors and possible approaches as well.The pattern here is that the emphasis is more on giving the player more control in every aspect of the game more so than creating a very linear and limiting experience. This philosophy was expanded on even further in AC:S, with the main criticism being that they took away some of that agency by making it nearly impossibly to fall to your death due to not being able to make manual jumps that have a chance of killing the player. It's funny because this is the core design philosophy behind many of Ubi's more recent games and the industry in general. Watch Dogs 2 has many mechanics in place that can intertwine at any moment to make each mission feel varied. And instead of increasing the density of hackables like a typical sequel, the devs instead increased the amount of things the player can hack and how many effects that they have. It's almost like you'd know this these things had you done something more than look at a screenshot of a map. But fuck all that logic, "all AC gamez r teh sam" am I right? Btw, Beyond Good and Evil 2 was confirmed months ago by the creative director. It's in full production.

 

[icecold1983]

Because they have done quite a lot to change the formula. For instance, AC3's campaign and mechanics are incredibly restrictive in terms of what the player is able to do, the former due to linearity to the point of frustration since failure can occur when you even slightly go off script not unlike Uncharted, and the latter due to gameplay mechanics being based solely on context, (enemies literally have unlimited health unless the player finishes a combo, uses a tool, or gets a counter kill). Even free aim didn't exist in the series at that point. And parkour was simplified to be much more contextual, despite there being more variety in the scenarios like different jumping distances, this was limiting. So overall the player had very little in the way of agency during the core gameplay in the majority of scenarios outside of how they choose to approach forts and some missions in the campaign. Now just to boil these things down:
-Stealth was contextual, the player couldn't even crouch
-Parkour was contextual instead of manual
-despite the many tools for combat enemies
-Missions were linear
-Players couldn't go where they want in the open world unless the story deemed it possible

Meanwhile, AC's core game design philosophy has done a literal 180 on those things completely, starting with BF's extensive open world that was completely open from the very start but not being fully realized AC:Unity's gameplay mechanics and core mission design. Instead of a scripted linear campaign and gameplay based almost solely on contexts, nearly every mission in the game contains a scenario which can be completed in nearly anyway the player chooses. Whether it's the approach due to how large the play spaces are, one of the best examples of this is the game's first assassination mission. Like, a player could follow that path in that demo, or take completely different routes, or hell, even jump off the top of Notre Dame to get air assassinate the target. Or anything in between those two extremes, the game keeps going. So that completely goes against AC3's cinematic linear style of mission design. Meanwhile, the parkour too, is based much more on manual input from the player instead of based on context. I made this post a while back detailing this:


So parkour is based not solely on context but on how well the player understands the controls. And this isn't even without getting into how this extends to other aspects of AC, like the level design incorporating many more interiors and possible approaches as well.The pattern here is that the emphasis is more on giving the player more control in every aspect of the game more so than creating a very linear and limiting experience. This philosophy was expanded on even further in AC:S, with the main criticism being that they took away some of that agency by making it nearly impossibly to fall to your death due to not being able to make manual jumps that have a chance of killing the player. It's funny because this is the core design philosophy behind many of Ubi's more recent games and the industry in general. Watch Dogs 2 has many mechanics in place that can intertwine at any moment to make each mission feel varied. And instead of increasing the density of hackables like a typical sequel, the devs instead increased the amount of things the player can hack and how many effects that they have. It's almost like you'd know this these things had you done something more than look at a screenshot of a map. But fuck all that logic, "all AC gamez r teh sam" am I right? Btw, Beyond Good and Evil 2 was confirmed months ago by the creative director. It's in full production.

control in syndicate is just awful. so no, not the last two ac games

 

[Rokal]

Because they have done quite a lot to change the formula...

Your post is a long list of minor mechanical improvements, not dramatic shifts to stale gameplay.

If my complaint had been "AC games haven't done enough to smooth out movement" or "there aren't enough paths to accomplish each objective" it would have been a great post. But that wasn't my complaint. Great that they managed to smooth out the parkour or made the missions a little less linear, but that's definitely not enough to make up for the awful counter-baiting combat, open-world bloat, and general samey-ness of every game in the series. The fact that you're citing such minor examples as evidence that the series is worth revisiting in 2017 is proof enough that it definitely isn't.

Last official update on Beyond Good and Evil 2 was some pre-production art and that it was in progress. As a reminder, they've been talking about this game as though it was a real thing that was in production for almost 7 years now.

 

[Muninn]

So basically you have no idea what you're talking about because you haven't played their games at all but instead looked at a bunch of map screens and expect us to take you seriously? For fuck sake For Honor literally just had an open beta this weekend. How is making a contemperary shooter in an era of sci-fi not an inherent risk? How is funding a title like Beyond Good and Evil 2, a sequel to a very old game that didn't sell very well not a risk? Regarding your edit above, do you even have ANY idea what any of those symbols actually mean?

Honestly, people can think what they want to think, but this shit is a leetle bit ridiculous lol. People and their hate for Ubisoft, it extends into the realm I haven't played the game but I hate it because of....

 

[WAR recon zero]

I mean, maybe for the Assassin's Creed franchise IDK. But their games have as much soul as the next franchise does IMO.

I dunno i feel the same when i see a farcry map or a division map.

These games are checklists

 

[Muninn]

I dunno i feel the same when i see a farcry map or a division map.

These games are checklists

The majority treat games like checklists anyway! Trophies galore. Achievements!

WD2 has a mode where you can turn the entire overlay off and use different tints to just bum around the city if you want and hack people. You don't have to do those checklists. You can just do stories. And you clean your HUD how you want to.

I really don't see the problem. WD2 has a decent enough story with some great side missions here and there. And coop is fun too. There is more to the game than just checking things off. Same with a lot of the games.

AC is probably the most guilty of rehash next to Far Cry, but I don't call FC4 a bad game because it has a lot of pointless stuff to do. Some of it is fun, but when it stops being fun I quit. Simple.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

Checklist games also apply to MGSV, Mad Max, Mafia III, Just Cause 3, Fallout 4 and many other open world games but yet, the popular overrated ones get a free pass but Ubisoft games and Ubisoft clones get bashed despite all the other games doing the same damn thing.

Personally, it's nothing more than people bashing Ubisoft just because it's Ubisoft. Nothing wrong with people not liking Ubisoft games but it's fucking ridiculous and hilarious when so many other open world games do the exact same shit and never get called out for it yet when it comes to Ubisoft, it's people and their never ending bullshit.

Those who only like to bash Ubisoft should simply stay away from Ubisoft games and topics. After all, what's the point? That's like me going into a Madden topic or some other publisher or game that I don't like. The games and publisher aren't going to change so instead of wasting time bashing Ubisoft (or whatever/whoever), why not play the games from publishers that you do like instead?

And for those who love posting pictures of the map with all the icons on them, amazing how no one has thus figured out yet that they can all be TURNED OFF!!! Even worse, EVERY open world game has this problem yet again, FREE PASS for every publisher and game unless you're Ubisoft.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

Your post is a long list of minor mechanical improvements, not dramatic shifts to stale gameplay.

If my complaint had been "AC games haven't done enough to smooth out movement" or "there aren't enough paths to accomplish each objective" it would have been a great post. But that wasn't my complaint. Great that they managed to smooth out the parkour or made the missions a little less linear, but that's definitely not enough to make up for the awful counter-baiting combat, open-world bloat, and general samey-ness of every game in the series. The fact that you're citing such minor examples as evidence that the series is worth revisiting in 2017 is proof enough that it definitely isn't.

Last official update on Beyond Good and Evil 2 was some pre-production art and that it was in progress. As a reminder, they've been talking about this game as though it was a real thing that was in production for almost 7 years now.

I don't see how the series being "samey" is a valid complaint. Every Mario games are "samey" no one complain about that though. It's a franchise, having common things in them is normal and not exclusive to Ubisoft's franchise.

Also there's clear different era in terms of gameplay in the AC franchise.

AC1
AC2-B-R which plays the same more or less
AC3
AC4-R
ACU
ACS

If you argue for exemple that AC1 and AC3 are "samey" in terms of gameplay you're going to have to back up that claim with facts.

 

[Muninn]

For AC I don't even really dislike the series. I just think there are too many of them for me to choose what I want to play when I'm already playing 50 games lol. I am sure I will try one. Black Flag looks kind of cool. I played the first one and it was okay back in the day. I wouldn't mind doing Unity maybe when I have a better CPU and GPU even.

I think if they take their time AC could be a really good game on its own, but they really need to their time. Their engine is getting to the point it can do a lot of things it never could in gens past.

I just don't buy this Ubisoft BS argument without any backup. It just seems like people hating to hate. I have even had a lot of fun with The Crew now and then. It's a game that has improved vastly over its launch.

And Steep to me is amazing stuff. No one is making games like Steep, and yet half of the people that post about why they don't like it have never played it.

 

[RenegadeXV8]

AC games are definitely samey to someone not super invested in them. Anecdotal evidence:

-Played AC1, made it halfway before getting bored.

-Played AC2 as everyone said it was a massive improvement. While it definitely was as far as pacing and structure goes, the actual gameplay itself was largely the same, and it quickly bored me. Didn't even make it halfway through.

-Skipped everything until AC4, as people were saying it was the best AC yet. The boat parts were fun for a bit, but I only made it about 4 hours in. It seriously felt like I was playing AC1 or 2 again, terrible combat and tedious mission objectives and all.

-Gave it one last shot with Syndicate as, again, everyone said it was the best AC in years. Dropped that even quicker. Same shit as all the others, awful combat, babbys first stealth, hold button to parkour.

---
If the next game overhauls the combat, stealth and actually adds consequences to fucking up, I might give it a go. Take some cues from Dishonored or Deus Ex.

But I doubt they will because this is a huge franchise and they'd be too afraid to lose their target market.

 

[Muninn]

AC games are definitely samey to someone not super invested in them. Anecdotal evidence:

-Played AC1, made it halfway before getting bored.

-Played AC2 as everyone said it was a massive improvement. While it definitely was as far as pacing and structure goes, the actual gameplay itself was largely the same, and it quickly bored me. Didn't even make it halfway through.

-Skipped everything until AC4, as people were saying it was the best AC yet. The boat parts were fun for a bit, but I only made it about 4 hours in. It seriously felt like I was playing AC1 or 2 again, terrible combat and tedious mission objectives and all.

-Gave it one last shot with Syndicate as, again, everyone said it was the best AC in years. Dropped that even quicker. Same shit as all the others, awful combat, babbys first stealth, hold button to parkour.

---
If the next game overhauls the combat, stealth and actually adds consequences to fucking up, I might give it a go. Take some cues from Dishonored or Deus Ex.

But I doubt they will because this is a huge franchise and they'd be too afraid to lose their target market.

IDK I think they realize they need to make it better. Ubisoft is pretty good at taking feedback if you ask me.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

AC games are definitely samey to someone not super invested in them. Anecdotal evidence:

-Played AC1, made it halfway before getting bored.

-Played AC2 as everyone said it was a massive improvement. While it definitely was as far as pacing and structure goes, the actual gameplay itself was largely the same, and it quickly bored me. Didn't even make it halfway through.

-Skipped everything until AC4, as people were saying it was the best AC yet. The boat parts were fun for a bit, but I only made it about 4 hours in. It seriously felt like I was playing AC1 or 2 again, terrible combat and tedious mission objectives and all.

-Gave it one last shot with Syndicate as, again, everyone said it was the best AC in years. Dropped that even quicker. Same shit as all the others, awful combat, babbys first stealth, hold button to parkour.

---
If the next game overhauls the combat, stealth and actually adds consequences to fucking up, I might give it a go. Take some cues from Dishonored or Deus Ex.

But I doubt they will because this is a huge franchise and they'd be too afraid to lose their target market.

This is something I cannot understand.

In AC1 you absolutely cannot engage and take down more than 2 or 3 ennemies at the same times as you'll most certainly die.

Also the mission structure was vastly different than in its sequels, it was basically "gather information on the target before taking them down" which is not at all how the other games were designed.

Everything you've mentioned has been overhauled several times across different titles, not acknowledging that is disingenuous.

BTW they did took cues from Dishonored's approach in WD2, there's more player agency and going all guns blazing is the hardest way to complete the game because you'll find yourself outnumbered and outpowered pretty quickly.

 

[Edris]

Being game diverse means nothing when people dont like your games.

Rather make less games but component ones

Their games sell very well.

 

[Exploratory]

Most Ubisoft games in my experience have poor gameplay. Obviously there are exceptions like For Honor and R6: Siege. That's generally the case though. The new Ghost Recon plays like trash. The Division never felt very good to play. Far Cry felt bare minimum in what I enjoyed.


That being said I preordered For Honor and plan to play the fuck out of it so I hold no ill will towards Ubisoft. They just aren't good at creating games with good gameplay.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Checklist games also apply to MGSV, Mad Max, Mafia III, Just Cause 3, Fallout 4 and many other open world games but yet, the popular overrated ones get a free pass but Ubisoft games and Ubisoft clones get bashed despite all the other games doing the same damn thing.

Personally, it's nothing more than people bashing Ubisoft just because it's Ubisoft. Nothing wrong with people not liking Ubisoft games but it's fucking ridiculous and hilarious when so many other open world games do the exact same shit and never get called out for it yet when it comes to Ubisoft, it's people and their never ending bullshit.

Those who only like to bash Ubisoft should simply stay away from Ubisoft games and topics. After all, what's the point? That's like me going into a Madden topic or some other publisher or game that I don't like. The games and publisher aren't going to change so instead of wasting time bashing Ubisoft (or whatever/whoever), why not play the games from publishers that you do like instead?

And for those who love posting pictures of the map with all the icons on them, amazing how no one has thus figured out yet that they can all be TURNED OFF!!! Even worse, EVERY open world game has this problem yet again, FREE PASS for every publisher and game unless you're Ubisoft.

Metal Gear Solid V's open world was as shitty, if not worse, than Ubi open worlds. The mechanics, however, are far better than any Ubi open world game could dream of though.

 

[Cow Goes Moo]

I generally enjoy the first couple of hours of Ubisoft "open world" games but hey don't hide monotony of repetition all that well especially in terms of side content so I just kind of stop caring pretty early on

Other games have a lot of bloat too like mgsv shadow of mordor witcher gravity rush xenoblade

But they usually have some aspect to them that is engaging enough for me to keep playing mindless grinds of repetition like cool traversal, multiple ways of travel or just doesn't have that many collectibles
Or just personally more enjoyable systems and combat

The counterpoint is that I don't have to collect all that shit but my lack of self restraint doesn't care and the rewards are in Ubisoft games are mostly negligible
So then I slowly ween off from doing that and stop caring altogether

Most of the Ubisoft games I've played are just really monotonously blatant about how needlessly repetitive it is to collect pointless feathers or just aren't very engaging when you reach an unknown piece of land

I don't care for most of their gameplay systems either
I'm sorry if this comes off as incoherent cause I just wanted to ramble

As for the new ips like for honor I think that's cool and I'll try it at a later time
Wd2 looks okay too lol too edgy for me though

 

[QuantumSquid]

i'm really hoping the next assassin's creed game turns out to be something special. clearly ubisoft realizes the series needs some rejuvenation and new ideas and for the first time in forever i'm actually kinda excited to see what they come up with.

 

[Muffdraul]

i'm really hoping the next assassin's creed game turns out to be something special. clearly ubisoft realizes the series needs some rejuvenation and new ideas and for the first time in forever i'm actually kinda excited to see what they come up with.

Syndicate was already several steps in the right direction, and Watch Dogs 2 was a huge improvement over the original in many ways. I'm pretty optimistic about the next AC.

 

[More_Badass]

Edit: Double post. Here are some beautiful recent Ubisoft Open World maps instead.

Okay, not generally directed at you, but maybe someone can explain this to me. Why does it matter that these games have a shitton of collectables?

Don't do them, or do enough to unlock stuff. Or just ignore everything but story missions.

Is opening a map and seeing tons of icons that revolting that it instantly ruins the game as a whole? The map full of icons always seems to be the first aspect brought up, so it seems like it's the biggest affront in people's minds

Syndicate was already several steps in the right direction, and Watch Dogs 2 was a huge improvement over the original in many ways. I'm pretty optimistic about the next AC.

Eh, I felt Syndicate ruined a lot of what made Assassin's Creed unique and interesting. The more modern the series gets, the more it feels at odds with the parkour, close quarters stealth/combat, and dense urban settings of the games. Combat was simplified too much, carriage chases felt like they were from a different game, and the wide streets hurt the flow of parkour. Plus, as much as I always want to see more 1800s London settings in games, it lacked the sense of historical tourism that they nailed with past games IMO

 

[Syranth]

I buy hundreds of games each year, from major publishers and indie teams alike, but I had to look at a "titles released by year" wikipedia list for Ubisoft to see when the last time I actually bought one of their games was. I picked up South Park Stick of Truth in 2014 and before that the last Ubisoft game I bought was AC3 in 2012. Calling South Park an Ubitsoft game feels a bit generous too, as it was technically a THQ game that they scooped up for cheap during THQ's bankruptcy auction, but had nothing to do with greenlighting.

Other than those two titles, I haven't bought a single Ubisoft game in 5+ years. Their entire output is Tom Clancy games and bloated paint-by-numbers open world snorefests. Looking at a map screen from Watch Dogs or any of the AC games from the last 5 years makes me feel immediate revulsion. They long ago gave up on any pretense of "quality over quantity". Likewise, they gave up on telling interesting stories some time ago, instead preferring safer narratives that lend themselves to an endless parade of sequels (AC3's conclusion to Desmond's story is the most obvious example of this, but even before then they were milking their franchises dry).

I played Grow Home when it was a free PS+ game, and it was okay albeit unpolished, but even that game as an example of Ubisoft's willingness to do small experimental games is disingenuous. The dev team had to make the game in secret on a shoestring budget, and only showed it to Ubisoft once it was more than halfway complete (source). They don't take new risks, they play it safer than any publisher besides Activision.

Here is an answer that should/can be pasted in so many threads on NeoGAF:

Dear Sir or Madam,

(default developer/publisher) continues to make (enter game/series here) because people both buy and like them. You may not like them but that doesn't mean every one else is wrong. You should continue to support the (game series you favor) and would rather be playing.

You see, products require an audience and do not exist unless an audience is there worth the risk and cost of developing the product. No matter what marketing a company uses to push a game series or product it really should not anger you in any way if you are not the target audience. You should move along and let people enjoy the game or product.

If you are angry because you don't "get it" then you may not need to. Other people do and should be allowed to enjoy it.
If you are angry because you bought a competing product and can't afford this one then let it go. You should be applauded for having a budget and not overspending.
If you are angry because you bought a competing product and something else came out that appears better then maybe you should rent games before buying them. Cutting down a product to make your attachment look better won't make you feel better as much as you think.
There are other scenarios here, but ultimately stop raining on someone's parade or interest.

You can apply this paste to any of the following but not excluding other scenarios:

- Open world games
- Independent games
- Japanese RPGs
- Nintendo Products (e.g. the Switch)
- Retro games
- Any other game type that gets walked all over for existing

 

[Formosa]

Never liked any of them Ubisoft games. Feels like they try too hard to be aaa games. There isn't really in depth of any of their games.

 

[Dr.brain64]

One of my favorite developers of all time. Definitely a company for hardcore gamers.

 

[WAR recon zero]

Checklist games also apply to MGSV, Mad Max, Mafia III, Just Cause 3, Fallout 4 and many other open world games but yet, the popular overrated ones get a free pass but Ubisoft games and Ubisoft clones get bashed despite all the other games doing the same damn thing.

Personally, it's nothing more than people bashing Ubisoft just because it's Ubisoft. Nothing wrong with people not liking Ubisoft games but it's fucking ridiculous and hilarious when so many other open world games do the exact same shit and never get called out for it yet when it comes to Ubisoft, it's people and their never ending bullshit.

Those who only like to bash Ubisoft should simply stay away from Ubisoft games and topics. After all, what's the point? That's like me going into a Madden topic or some other publisher or game that I don't like. The games and publisher aren't going to change so instead of wasting time bashing Ubisoft (or whatever/whoever), why not play the games from publishers that you do like instead?

And for those who love posting pictures of the map with all the icons on them, amazing how no one has thus figured out yet that they can all be TURNED OFF!!! Even worse, EVERY open world game has this problem yet again, FREE PASS for every publisher and game unless you're Ubisoft.

Mgs5, fallout 3 and 4 and mad max have gameplay elements far superior than Ubisoft jank controls and buggy Elements. The gameplay elements elevate the experience and kill the repetiteveness

Not sure about Mafia 3

 

[Kaleinc]

Yeah, ubisoft never does this. I mean that lady who spent 2 years of her life modelling the Notre Dame Cathedral, not to mention the rest of the team who spent 5 years recreating Paris didn't put any effort into it. Nope none at all. Or the fact they released 7 games in a row all meticulously crafting worlds, creating new assets for new iterations (2-Revelation) (3-Rogue) (Unity-Syndicate)

That's the problem - same shit, different textures. Only works well for 3DMark.

 

[More_Badass]

That's the problem - same shit, different textures. Only works well for 3DMark.

Different textures? You can't be serious

 

[Rokal]

Okay, not generally directed at you, but maybe someone can explain this to me. Why does it matter that these games have a shitton of collectables?

Don't do them, or do enough to unlock stuff. Or just ignore everything but story missions.

Is opening a map and seeing tons of icons that revolting that it instantly ruins the game as a whole? The map full of icons always seems to be the first aspect brought up, so it seems like it's the biggest affront in people's minds

It's not about the presence of all the icons. As another poster pointed out, you can toggle them off. It's what the icons represent: that the majority of content in the game has almost no value, and follows the exact same quantity>quality design of the other Ubisoft open world games. It's kitchen sink design, where instead of interesting hand-crafted side missions that tell an interesting story like Witcher 3, or a handful of collectibles that feel like they have significant value and are worth seeking out, the game presents a massive series of tasks that feel like they could have been randomly generated by a machine. They barely conceal the fact that they are there to check boxes and fill time, a small step removed from Auto-Clicker games in their transparency.

I could play a new AC game and ignore most of the side content; it's certainly what I tried to do with AC3 where every side system felt even more half-assed than earlier games in the franchise. When you disable all the icons and ignore everything except the main story missions, you're disabling all the supposed "living world" benefits of the open world genre. Why have the open world at all if you're only playing a dozen or so missions in their contained areas? Playing the game that way also puts more stress on the story missions, and accentuates their flaws.

The map icons screenshots keep coming back as a sore spot for Ubisoft open-world detractors because they are visible proof that Ubisoft hasn't learned a damn thing with their new iterations on the formula.

 

[fresquito]

Checklist games also apply to MGSV, Mad Max, Mafia III, Just Cause 3, Fallout 4 and many other open world games but yet, the popular overrated ones get a free pass but Ubisoft games and Ubisoft clones get bashed despite all the other games doing the same damn thing.

Personally, it's nothing more than people bashing Ubisoft just because it's Ubisoft. Nothing wrong with people not liking Ubisoft games but it's fucking ridiculous and hilarious when so many other open world games do the exact same shit and never get called out for it yet when it comes to Ubisoft, it's people and their never ending bullshit.

Those who only like to bash Ubisoft should simply stay away from Ubisoft games and topics. After all, what's the point? That's like me going into a Madden topic or some other publisher or game that I don't like. The games and publisher aren't going to change so instead of wasting time bashing Ubisoft (or whatever/whoever), why not play the games from publishers that you do like instead?

And for those who love posting pictures of the map with all the icons on them, amazing how no one has thus figured out yet that they can all be TURNED OFF!!! Even worse, EVERY open world game has this problem yet again, FREE PASS for every publisher and game unless you're Ubisoft.

The day you learn there're Ubisoft fanboys...

 

[More_Badass]

It's not about the presence of all the icons. As another poster pointed out, you can toggle them off. It's what the icons represent: that the majority of content in the game has almost no value, and follows the exact same quantity>quality design of the other Ubisoft open world games. It's kitchen sink design, where instead of interesting hand-crafted side missions that tell an interesting story like Witcher 3, or a handful of collectibles that feel like they have significant value and are worth seeking out, the game presents a massive series of tasks that feel like they could have been randomly generated by a machine. They barely conceal the fact that they are there to check boxes and fill time, a small step removed from Auto-Clicker games in their transparency.

I could play a new AC game and ignore most of the side content; it's certainly what I tried to do with AC3 where every side system felt even more half-assed than earlier games in the franchise. When you disable all the icons and ignore everything except the main story missions, you're disabling all the supposed "living world" benefits of the open world genre. Why have the open world at all if you're only playing a dozen or so missions in their contained areas? Playing the game that way also puts more stress on the story missions, and accentuates their flaws.

The map icons screenshots keep coming back as a sore spot for Ubisoft open-world detractors because they are visible proof that Ubisoft hasn't learned a damn thing with their new iterations on the formula.

Those icons or side activities aren't what makes an open world a "living world". It never is, in any open world really. What gave you that notion?

As for your second point, the reasons are atmosphere and sense of place. Also, have you played Mafia 2?

 

[grandwizard]

UBI tries too hard lately to imposed a liberal multicultural agenda on their games.

Really?

 

[Crossing Eden]

control in syndicate is just awful. so no, not the last two ac games

Syndicate has more responsive controls than Unity. The lack of manual jumping is the issue.

Your post is a long list of minor mechanical improvements, not dramatic shifts to stale gameplay.

If my complaint had been "AC games haven't done enough to smooth out movement" or "there aren't enough paths to accomplish each objective" it would have been a great post. But that wasn't my complaint. Great that they managed to smooth out the parkour or made the missions a little less linear, but that's definitely not enough to make up for the awful counter-baiting combat, open-world bloat, and general samey-ness of every game in the series. The fact that you're citing such minor examples as evidence that the series is worth revisiting in 2017 is proof enough that it definitely isn't.

Last official update on Beyond Good and Evil 2 was some pre-production art and that it was in progress. As a reminder, they've been talking about this game as though it was a real thing that was in production for almost 7 years now.

These are less minor technical improvements and more dramatic shifts in how they approach gameplay design. Are you ducking serious? You haven't even played these games. No it's not just smoother parkour, or a little less linear missions. All of those changes affected every level of how they make the game and thus the gameplay experience itself. For fuck sake you can't even get counter kills anymore yet you seem that to be a valid complaint. Learn about what the hell you're talking about before trying to have a discussion about games you so blatantly don't know jack shit about. Because you'd spare us all the time and effort dealing with your intellecually dishonest bs by either not posting at all or just admitting that you genuinely don't know jack shit over using incredibly dishonest arguments that don't even apply to the games you're complaining about.

 

[Kaleinc]

Different textures? You can't be serious

You're implying even textures are the same? I can't tell seriously.

 

[Crossing Eden]

You're implying even textures are the same? I can't tell seriously.

What he's implying is that you should stop downplaying a dramatic shift in level design as well as an incredible work effort as "different textures." That's not how that works.

 

[Roxas]

They get no hate from me. 2 of my favourite games I've played this gen were Rayman Legends and AC:Black Flag. Also had a lot of fun playing Watch Dogs 2 these past couple of weeks. I can't complain.

 

[More_Badass]

You're implying even textures are the same? I can't tell seriously.

Your comment basically said that Constantinople, Paris, London, etc. were just lazy re-skinned environments. Which is such an utterly incredulous notion that it can only be the result of blindness or a joke

 

[Dalibor68]

Those icons or side activities aren't what makes an open world a "living world". It never is, in any open world really. What gave you that notion?

As for your second point, the reasons are atmosphere and sense of place. Also, have you played Mafia 2?

The point to me is that they are not respecting the time. Instead of having to collect 100 treasure boxes that only give you on-screen text rewards, why not focus on 10 and give them proper treasure hunt feeling and presentation? Why 50 generic assassination sidequests that feel autogenerated if you could instead do 10 which are however having more narrative, cutscenes maybe, etc

I want Deus Ex:MD / Witcher 3 tier Sidequests, not shitty autogenerated checklist collectathon stuff soyou can write on the game box "offers 50h of gameplay".

I want quality over quantity but currently its the opposite.

 

[Crossing Eden]

The point to me is that they are not respecting the time. Instead of having to collect 100 treasure boxes that only give you on-screen text rewards, why not focus on 10 and give them proper treasure hunt feeling and presentation? Why 50 generic assassination sidequests that feel autogenerated if you could instead do 10 which are however having more narrative, cutscenes maybe, etc

Ubi's games include these ON TOP of the less fulfilling side quests. Just like TW3's monster hunts. And they absolutely respect your time because unlike something like MGSV's timers, the player has total agency about how much they want to engage with these quests.

 

[Kaleinc]

Your comment basically said that Constantinople, Paris, London, etc. were just lazy re-skinned environments. Which is such an utterly incredulous notion that it can only be the result of blindness or a joke

In 3DMark I also mentioned scenes are not 're-skinned environments' too.
Speaking of copy pasted level design, don't FC4 and FC Primal reuse the same map?

 

[Crossing Eden]

In 3DMark I also mentioned scenes are not 're-skinned environments' too.
Speaking of copy pasted level design, don't FC4 and FC Primal reuse the same map?

Do you know what a height map is?

 

[CmdBash]

My critique for ubisoft is specifically for rainbow six siege. Just in the last week there has been 3 nights where I have not been able to play the game due to the servers being down (of which one night my renown booster was wasted). This isn't even an isolated incident, there are constant matchmaking errors, hit reg issues and gamebreaking bugs. If it was a couple months into release I would be understanding, but this is one year on. Every patch they say they've fixed problems, only to find that they haven't been completely fixed and then have also introduced new problems.

 

[vonStirlitz]

I actually like Ubisoft games and probably own more from that publisher than others (I'd have more FROM games if they published more but they don't).

Yeah, the checklist gameplay gets a drag, but they do more for immersive historical fantasies than most.

Some of my best gaming experiences have involved fulfilling my caveman fantasies in hunting down mammoths or arsing around in revolutionary Paris. Gameplay wise - gets stale quickly. Fulfilment wise - fantastic.

 

[boneyjangles]

I think Ass Creed, Watchdogs and Division, Farcry are all cool franchises.

But if they really want to follow the Gran Theft Auto / Rockstar model of success for these big open world games, then maybe make the release schedule more like Grand Theft Auto / Rockstar, and less 'call of duty'.

If they would release games less often, and stopped rushing them. I might be more inclined to check them out.

 

[MoneySings]

Ubisoft are always going to come under flak as they are a huge developer/publisher. Along side EA of re-hashing franchises.

I admit, I am one of 'those guys' who thinks they are re-hashing the same thing over and over again when it comes to game designs / UI, but then it dawned on me; they are just making certain things standardised to make it easier to jump into.. like the mini-map for AC, FC, GR:Wild Lands, Watch Dogs etc Why redesign the wheel when the wheel works well.

When Far Cry 3 came out, I reported a reproducible bug (I received the game a couple of days early) to a friend who works for Ubisoft in the UK. He reported it internally along with my video and within a day or two of the release, there was a patch which addressed it (and various others). They DO listen to issues... and some of their games are really good fun. In fact, most are... I have spent 30+ hours on FC3 - 60+ hours on FC4 (yes, I had it on PC and PS4 lol) - don't even know about the AC franchise lol

Oh, and people grip about The Division but man, i've sunk so many hours into it - shame they shot themselves in the foot many times and people just aren't active on it as much.

 

[Albo]

Thinking more about it, Ubisoft just really lacks story-focused non-open-world top-class games like a Last Of Us, Uncharted, BioShock, Mass Effect, etc.

Essentially this generation it's open world 08/15 checklist games(some of which are actually decent/good):
Far Cry 4
Far Cry Primal
AC Black Flag
AC Unity
AC Syndicate
The Division
Ghost Recon: Wildlands
Steep
Watch Dogs
Watch Dogs 2
The Crew

Add to that two 4/5vs4/5 competetive mp games(R6 Siege, For Honor), South Park(if it ever comes out) and some rather insignificant low-budget titles(grow home, grow up, child of light, valiant hearts).

I don't want every AAA game to be open world, I don't want damn checklists and the same formulaic gameplay of unlocking outposts and climbing towers, I don't want them to be void of any real narrative. Yet that's what Ubisoft keeps delivering and I think in recent news they even said they were going to double down on pulling focus away from narrative content in favor of "having players form their own narrative by gameplay experiences".

You forgot the rayman games, trials games and zombi u, so ubisoft has a lot of great games other than formulaic AAA ones. All those games are better than the open world list above it imo(and arguably siege, for honour, south park and zombi are AAA). The couple of bigger franchises have larger budgets so they're using a formula that sells to the masses. People just continue to ignore their other games though.

 

[icecold1983]

Syndicate has more responsive controls than Unity. The lack of manual jumping is the issue.

These are less minor technical improvements and more dramatic shifts in how they approach gameplay design. Are you ducking serious? You haven't even played these games. No it's not just smoother parkour, or a little less linear missions. All of those changes affected every level of how they make the game and thus the gameplay experience itself. For fuck sake you can't even get counter kills anymore yet you seem that to be a valid complaint. Learn about what the hell you're talking about before trying to have a discussion about games you so blatantly don't know jack shit about. Because you'd spare us all the time and effort dealing with your intellecually dishonest bs by either not posting at all or just admitting that you genuinely don't know jack shit over using incredibly dishonest arguments that don't even apply to the games you're complaining about.

it does not. its clumsy and janky as hell. thats why all of the gifs you provided were from AC unity and not syndicate. general traversal of various elevations is clumsy and inaccurate in syndicate

 

[Crossing Eden]

it does not. its clumsy and janky as hell. thats why all of the gifs you provided were from AC unity and not syndicate. general traversal of various elevations is clumsy and inaccurate in syndicate

Syndicate literally uses the same engine and animation data as Unity. Unity was the first game in the series with that version of the parkour. Syndicate is less parkour friendly due to the setting compared to the incredibly dense French setting. But it still had less input delay than Unity, (I remember the devs specifying half).

 

[RenegadeXV8]

This is something I cannot understand.

In AC1 you absolutely cannot engage and take down more than 2 or 3 ennemies at the same times as you'll most certainly die.

Also the mission structure was vastly different than in its sequels, it was basically "gather information on the target before taking them down" which is not at all how the other games were designed.

Everything you've mentioned has been overhauled several times across different titles, not acknowledging that is disingenuous.

BTW they did took cues from Dishonored's approach in WD2, there's more player agency and going all guns blazing is the hardest way to complete the game because you'll find yourself outnumbered and outpowered pretty quickly.

I did acknowledge that. The problem is that it feels like you're playing the same game, so if you're not really into that kind of gameplay right off the bat, structure or pacing or story or setting isn't going to change your mind about the games.

I'm not talking out of my ass here. I gave each of those entries a legitimate shot, but there weren't anywhere near enough gameplay changes from the first game over 10 years ago to the latest entry to actually engage me.