icecold1983
Member
how much time have you spent with both games on pc?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ubisoft hate?
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
- Status
how much time have you spent with both games on pc?
And that just shows the problem. Doesn't matter how much they change the level design, AC's games still feel like copy pasted games
VincentMatts
Member
I dont hate them, i just know better now. Most (if not all) their games launch needing a few patches before the game actually is what its supposed to be.
I wait till their games fall on sale now, plus by that time theyve been patches numerous times already.
I wait till their games fall on sale now, plus by that time theyve been patches numerous times already.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Except that they don't, because it's not just level design being changed. It's multiple fundamentals of the game's design.
Enough to know what i'm talking about after playing them at 60fps.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Great contribution to the discussion. I feel like all of us would've been better off without your shitpost,
u r definitely not a ubi employee i am sorry
More_Badass
Member
How about we don't go down that route, and let's stick to discussing games
LOL, I literally wait for EVERY SINGLE major game to have a patch or two even when I preorder. I waited until the FIRST DLC to play Witcher 3. It's something you deal with. Every publisher is guilty.
Well I wouldn't say I hate Ubisoft open world games. But something is buggering me in these titles. I often bought them cheap ex. 20, them and play them awhile, but I can never manage to finish them. This has happened on recent titles.
Far Cry 4, Far Cry Primal and Assassin Creed Syndicate. I play them about 4-5h max and then stop playing. I don't know why, maybe it's the open world structure that just makes it chore to play.
Only exception is Black Flag that I played quite plenty. I really liked the pirate-theme and exploration of sea and islands.
Far Cry 4, Far Cry Primal and Assassin Creed Syndicate. I play them about 4-5h max and then stop playing. I don't know why, maybe it's the open world structure that just makes it chore to play.
Only exception is Black Flag that I played quite plenty. I really liked the pirate-theme and exploration of sea and islands.
But they dont? I don't remember a single proper quality side-quest that rivals the quality of DE:MD or TW3's better ones.
And I just recently played through both Watch Dogs 1(has generic auto-generated sidequests + collecthathon investigations which offer mild narrative payoff but still requires you to do 7-20 of the same missions just to then get a final mission which more often than not also didn't feel like anything special) and Far Cry Primal(again generic auto-generated sidequests + auto-generated boring random events; all the villager missions are required to finish the game so they're not sidequests). And of course the 08/15 outpost clearing in both games.
You have to be blind to not see the extreme similarities of basically all ubisoft open-world games. It's one thing whether you like that or not(I really liked Primal), but straight off denying it comes off as giving the impression that there's some personal stake in it.
Doug Heffernan
Member
That AC Unity creepy face glitch was like their Howard Dean BYAAAH moment. They still haven't recovered from it.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
How do you know what the sequels feel like if they're aren't getting pennies from you?
I literally did that in the post on the last page, again stop shitposting by calling everyone who isn't shitposting a fanboy.
The homestead of AC3 is a fully fledged second campaign, the Peg Leg missions were also nice cinematic levels with their own areas. There's also the in BF there are templar key hunts with multiple characters and cutscenes, in AC:Unity the co-op campaign has it's own cast of characters and the side missions themselves are for the most part multi faceted with multiple missions and characters, In AC:Syndicate the historical characters all have their own quest lines. Hell even WD2's side quests all offer a lot of variety ranging from stopping a man from committing suicide to swatting an online troll. That's just from the AC series.
So you didn't read the OP at all, or completely decided to disregard these two paragraphs?
Or the fact that accusing some one of blindly defending something, when OP actually did mention fair criticism of the company.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Complex != fun
Seriously. The complexity argument is comical. Besides, they aren't even mechanically complex games anyway.
Not from me they don't. Add GTA to the list too.
This is literally a thread about "Ubisoft hate". What are you even talking about? I sure don't go into threads about Ubisoft games to bash them, but this thread is literally about explaining "why the hate"....
It shows where their design philosophy is about. Tons of meaningless, boring collectibles and side-missions to pad game length without offering compelling gameplay or narrative.
Nailed it
I don't hate Ubisoft, but I don't particularly care for them either. I'm not in sync with their vision of "Live" worlds. I don't want to be connected. I don't want to share. I don't want to cooperate. Then they speak about shifting away from story focus which makes me care even less.
Ubisoft relies heavily on a model of repetition in their gameplay. They simply aren't good enough (yet) to rid themselves of storytelling.
Ubisoft relies heavily on a model of repetition in their gameplay. They simply aren't good enough (yet) to rid themselves of storytelling.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Wait....you didn't even make it past the tutorial of AC3 or consider yourself informed without any first hand experience whatsoever based on let's plays? FFS a let's play is only good for story critique first and foremost and even then you likely wouldn't get the full picture. Especially since your posts are full of misinformation as seen below.
FC
's moment to moment is much different from 3/4 based on the lack of guns and subsequently the lack of verticality since the player can no longer fly. Haven't played the game but somehow it's trash. And you didn't even watch a full playthrough, you watched parts, that's incredibly laughable that you think you can genuinely attempt to having a discussion about gameplay based solely on watching.
I genuinely don't believe you tried the Wildlands closed beta. Because it's genuinely nothing like the Division starting first and foremost with not having any RPG elements whatsoever.
You might have played Wildlands but you haven't played Division if you mistake them being very similar. Sure they are 3rd person games with guns, though Wildlands has first person shooting too. But they are way different. Wildlands is about choosing your own approach and all the different ways to do a mission. While Division is very straight forward in it's mission design, it's just shooting there's no sneaking or diversions. It's about grinding for better loot. And the main missions aswell the end game missions in Division are done in confined spaces. And it takes much more from RPG:s than Wildlands does. And I think they have already stated that PVP aspect wont be in any way similar to Dark Zone. Wildlands is more of a sandbox while Division is a loot shooter.
Edit: Oh and only Wildlands has vehicles that also play a big part in the game. This is like you would compare Phantom Pain to Destiny. Doesn't make much sense does it?
finalgamer
Member
Ubisoft deserves a ton of praise for Far Cry 2 and Buck Bumble.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
It's funny because older builds of the Division had stuff like stealth takedowns and they purposefully removed them since that wasn't the direction they wanted to go in for an RPG.
Yeah I was actually kinda bummed about it at first that they got removed. But after playing the game I don't see how those takedowns would really fit in.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Basically.
How do you tell how a game feels to play without playing it yourself, on the last page there's an indepth look in how the parkour in AC post BF works. It's more complex and refined than ever with the engine making very little assumptions. You can't critique these aspects and you've been wrong on several accounts so obviously your little "system" isn't working.
AC3 played quite different than the Ezio trilogy for the reasons I outlined on the last page, and the games post BF play quite different than the Kenway Saga. Hell the Haytham tutorial barely is the full game as so many mechanics are locked. And again, AC3 is an outlier as it was a new game engine altogether where they needed to reintroduce all the mechanics. AC:Unity and Syndicate barely have any tutorials whatsoever due to their open nature.
Then you don't know jackshit about it, especially not enough to even remotely use it as a comparison.
Because the game is quite good, arguably it's one of the smoothest and tightly controlled open world games. And one of the first examples of Ubi's current mission design philosophy where the player expressing themselves is more important than linearity.
Perfect example of the first thing I typed in this post.
flaxknuckles
Member
Saw your comment about Watch Dogs before the edit. It is known that WD1 is one of the best controlling open-world games (even people who shit on the game acknowledge that) so I don't know what you are smoking. You probably never played the game.
I definitely never played the game. I watched Let's Plays. Nothing about the story or characters (Aiden Pierce, lol) or gameplay made me want to give Ubisoft money. I don't care why he's edgy or his lack of motivation and direction and I am not intrigued by h@cking the w0rld
EDIT: Oh. Pearce. Clever. Ha
More_Badass
Member
I tend to discount gameplay criticism from people who haven't played the games they're criticizing. Watching gameplay can only tell you so much. It can't tell you about the pace of the game (especially an open world game), about how good or bad the controls are, about the game as a whole, and so on. It's like listening to a movie and then discussing it like you watched it.
That applies for any game.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
But again, none of that has to do with the actual gameplay. That's all story related.
I disagree to an extent. People absorb information differently.
There are 100% Let's Plays as well as just Main Story too.
Depends the movie, but I can tell you that Superman 64 is bad without having played it, just as you can retell me the story of The Little Mermaid and give me a pretty good picture. You don't have to sing Under the Sea for me to understand the story.
I have a gamer friend who can't -actually- play over half the games that we talk about due to physical disability. Do I just throw his opinion out the window because he has one arm? No. I listen, I'll check out Let's Plays on my own and form my own thoughts but his aren't invalid.
Do I have to do the polished turd analogy?
EDIT: Y'know what, OK. I guess a sandbox game can have a shit story and good gameplay. Fine. I just prefer to have characters in my games.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
You're still trying to have a genuine discussion about the mechanics about a game you haven't played? There's playing a game and quitting before the actual game starts and then thinking you have a valid opinion five years down the later after several major changes to the game design philosophies of the devs. Watch Dogs has characters btw, the cast of WD2 especially is praiseworthy as the characters are all pretty relatable on top of being inclusive. WD1 isn't the most well written open world game ever but it's not the worst either, it's inoffensive.
Spiral Insanity
Banned
Most of their big hitters are so bland. I tried all the latest beta's, but it just didn't click with me.
I think they try too hard to capture the young teen audience.
I think they try too hard to capture the young teen audience.
Watch out we got Yves in this thread.
I N N O V A T I O N
I'll be honest. I should have known better than to expect something great and new from an Assassin's Creed game. It's still Assassin's Creed at the base, and that grew stale on me half a decade ago. I wish they didn't go full ME3 ending with Desmond's arc.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
If you're buying an AC game and expecting it to play absolutely nothing like an AC game then you're doing it wrong, replace AC with
-Uncharted
-Gears of War
-Legend of Zelda
-Souls
or any big successful franchise that has had multiple iterations. AC in it's current state plays pretty greatly with the refined parkour, emphasis on stealth, and emphasis on non linear game design. Again you should sincerely play these at least a bit before trying to have a discussion about them, especially if you're gonna attempt to provide any sort of credible critique.
Very well said.
To add to this, their open world design has taken on such a philosophy as well. Full disclosure, i've only played the first 4 Assassin's Creed games and all my opinions are currently based off of those 4 games.
If you've ever explored an Assassin's Creed open world you'll have noticed a number repeated architectural designs. All the towers you climb are identical in terms of shape, texture and size. Shops all identical as well as vendor carts, house top gardens,etc.
The world is made up of re textured houses like this. With the same geometry, same colours, same windows, etc. Now imagine an entire world made up using a variety of these assets just rearranged. It's boring to look at and walk around in. Some of the best part in Assassin's Creed games are the historical recreations of famous landmarks because they're original.
It's not like a Grand Theft Auto world that almost relies on so much original art and geometry to really make it feel like an actual place and not just one that's been created. The Assassin's Creed games feel cheap, manufactured and rushed.
I think this sentiment is embodied throughout the series. Nothing feels like it was put into the game with care. You're telling me some one placed each individual feathers (or whatever other collectible there is) each with a purpose. Or the treasure chests for that matter? How about the side missions? Was delivering that letter across the map really a well thought out quest? Does it have any affect on the overarching story or the world in general? How bout when you do that quest again for the 6th time, but this time the letter being a package... etc. It's all just filler. And too much of it.
I agree, I just wanted closure on Desmond's story. After that I did not care for any of the new characters or plots or silly twists.
Out of that list I've only enjoyed ONE Legend of Zelda and 0 of any of the other franchises, so I think you just like games that I do not enjoy. I will not purchase another AC after the AC3 intro made me yawn. Yves you cannot convince me otherwise.
I did, however, really enjoy all Halos until Halo 4, where it took an equally bland step in no direction, just like AC3.
They offered their games FOR FREE I denied them. I do not want UPlay and I do not want any more assassin's creed. Ever. Literally there is nothing besides maybe VR that would ever get me to touch their franchise again. Keep 'em alive by buying a 2nd copy and season pass for me though.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Buildings were designed this way because of the limited parkour system and ofc limited rendering power considering that AC games typically render a lot more geometry and npcs. It's infuriating how many of these criticisms have been addressed for literally years yet they're being reiterated in this thread as if they still design the levels like they did in the past.Very well said.
To add to this, their open world design has taken on such a philosophy as well. Full disclosure, i've only played the first 4 Assassin's Creed games and all my opinions are currently based off of those 4 games.
If you've ever explored an Assassin's Creed open world you'll have noticed a number repeated architectural designs. All the towers you climb are identical in terms of shape, texture and size. Shops all identical as well as vendor carts, house top gardens,etc.
The world is made up of re textured houses like this. With the same geometry, same colours, same windows, etc. Now imagine an entire world made up using a variety of these assets just rearranged. It's boring to look at and walk around in. Some of the best part in Assassin's Creed games are the historical recreations of famous landmarks because they're original.
It's not like a Grand Theft Auto world that almost relies on so much original art and geometry to really make it feel like an actual place and not just one that's been created. The Assassin's Creed games feel cheap, manufactured and rushed.
-The towers LONG since stopped using identical shapes and can be placed anywhere on the map
-There is a metric fuckton more variety in the buildings and well as the way districts are built
AC Revelations was made in 2011 and you still think they design buildings and geometry the same way as they did SIX years ago? Really? Brb gonna go complain about companion characters interrupting the adventure in that BOTW thread. Because workflows never change ever.
And yet Halo 5 is the best gameplay experience when it comes to Halo, you should sincerely stop making assumptions about sequels you have no intention of playing. Because you literally are incapable of making valuable contributions to discussion due to your willful ignorance. Pretty much a PERFECT example of what the OP is talking about.
No. I played Halo5 I just didn't enjoy it. Your opinion is not God's word. I heavily disagree. REALLY dude? Halo 5 was goddamn awful. The MP was aiight. But the SP? Christ. Wow. That pretty much explains why we don't see eye to eye on anything.
The AI was like 13 steps backwards, for one. And shoehorning in "MP" with dumbass is definitely an awful, awful idea.
Edit: Yeesh.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
The campaign was poorly paced but the core gameplay was an insanely good natural evolution of Halo's mechanics, it absolutely shined in the MP modes. Especially since they focused first and foremost on enhancing the moveset of the player and making it so every player is on equal ground over things like loadouts.
I'm probably gonna go break my h5 disc now thanks. But I agree the MP was aiight.
Prototype Viktor
Member
the only thing that could quell my Ubisoft hatred is if they made a Warlords 5
GitarooMan
Member
I've loved a ton of recent Ubi games like Far Cry 4, The Crew, Siege, and I'm looking forward to For Honor. I've got no hate for them at all.
There are a lot of reasons people "hate" Ubisoft. Let's split those reasons into "game design-related" and "beyond the games"
1.beyond the games
On the PR side, they're too "how do you do kids"-y. Examples: #girlbonner, "let's create a meme", the Division's iconic jacket, those obviously staged teamtalks during the Division and Rainbow Six segments.They are the poster boy for showing fake/disingenuous game footage that looks nothing like the finished product. They also had a billion versions of Watch Dogs which did become a meme. There actually are unforced Ubisoft memes, but they're all mostly negative because the company has this reputation of incompetence mixed in with greed. See: Unity's face glitch, Watch Dogs versions sheet, misuse of the word "iconic".
Ubisoft is like EA and Activision only a little less evil and more goofy, but it's still a major AAA behemoth so why are they acting all "I'm hip, I'm cool, taka taka taka", unless there's an ulterior motive *DING DING*. Not saying EA and Activison don't pander, but not as much as Ubisoft. They're like the in AAA corporation.
2.game-design related
This one's simple. A lot of people on hardcore enthusiast forums are sick of formulaic open world games. Your open world game has to absolutely excel in some way in order to be well-received. The Witcher 3 has amazing writing, MGSV has amazing stealth gameplay. Or it has to have some interesting hook, like the robo-dinos a̶n̶d̶ ̶P̶S̶4̶ ̶e̶x̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶ in Horizon or Batman and Gotham City in Arkham Knight. It's not just Ubisoft games, Mad Max, Shadow of Mordor and Dragon Age Inquisition all got ridiculed. Even Horizon is getting a fair share of flak for it's Ubi-dino system.
I think a lot of people think Ubisoft is "soulless" and "by the committee" because a lot of their games are in a genre that has to meet some very specific criteria in order to not be shat on by the hardcore gamers, and Ubiworld games generally don't meet that criteria
Also forum enthusiasts are smart people and see right through Ubisoft's fronting as some friendly, hip company that totally gives a shit about you and doesn't just want your money.
Like what are people expecting to hear when they ask "Why the Ubisoft/EA/Activision/shady, greedy, mega-corporation hate"?
1.beyond the games
On the PR side, they're too "how do you do kids"-y. Examples: #girlbonner, "let's create a meme", the Division's iconic jacket, those obviously staged teamtalks during the Division and Rainbow Six segments.They are the poster boy for showing fake/disingenuous game footage that looks nothing like the finished product. They also had a billion versions of Watch Dogs which did become a meme. There actually are unforced Ubisoft memes, but they're all mostly negative because the company has this reputation of incompetence mixed in with greed. See: Unity's face glitch, Watch Dogs versions sheet, misuse of the word "iconic".
Ubisoft is like EA and Activision only a little less evil and more goofy, but it's still a major AAA behemoth so why are they acting all "I'm hip, I'm cool, taka taka taka", unless there's an ulterior motive *DING DING*. Not saying EA and Activison don't pander, but not as much as Ubisoft. They're like the in AAA corporation.
2.game-design related
This one's simple. A lot of people on hardcore enthusiast forums are sick of formulaic open world games. Your open world game has to absolutely excel in some way in order to be well-received. The Witcher 3 has amazing writing, MGSV has amazing stealth gameplay. Or it has to have some interesting hook, like the robo-dinos a̶n̶d̶ ̶P̶S̶4̶ ̶e̶x̶c̶l̶u̶s̶i̶v̶i̶t̶y̶ in Horizon or Batman and Gotham City in Arkham Knight. It's not just Ubisoft games, Mad Max, Shadow of Mordor and Dragon Age Inquisition all got ridiculed. Even Horizon is getting a fair share of flak for it's Ubi-dino system.
I think a lot of people think Ubisoft is "soulless" and "by the committee" because a lot of their games are in a genre that has to meet some very specific criteria in order to not be shat on by the hardcore gamers, and Ubiworld games generally don't meet that criteria
Also forum enthusiasts are smart people and see right through Ubisoft's fronting as some friendly, hip company that totally gives a shit about you and doesn't just want your money.
Like what are people expecting to hear when they ask "Why the Ubisoft/EA/Activision/shady, greedy, mega-corporation hate"?
fabricated backlash
Member
My only real Qualm with ubi is their highly inconsistent quality.
Splinter Cell is a good example.
SC - amazing
PT- mediocre
CT - GOAT
da - serviceable
Conv - trash
BL - amazing
I just remain very very selective about what games I buy from them.
Which is a shame because I know they have some mad talent in their teams.
Splinter Cell is a good example.
SC - amazing
PT- mediocre
CT - GOAT
da - serviceable
Conv - trash
BL - amazing
I just remain very very selective about what games I buy from them.
Which is a shame because I know they have some mad talent in their teams.
Considering that I stated earlier I've only played the first 4 games, it's very much possible that they've changed it and that's great. But that doesn't excuse doing it for 4 fucking games. GTA IV came out in 2008 and the world design in that game shits all over AC:R from 2011. And Ubisoft had 4 games to learn from their past mistakes. So your point is immediately invalid.
But I will let you blindly and angrily defend a company you must have stock in. People think the games are shit, and lots do. It's not us. It's you.
Back to the Ubicopter, CrossingEden.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
GTAIV didn't have a complex climbing system that dictated how the city was designed, hell, it's a more complex game than GTAV in terms of interiors, mini games, etc. hell, AC3 literally was the point where they stopped designing worlds in binary ways with obvious geometry as that was the first time they revamped the engine completely. So congrats on being four years late to the party.
You realize that there is a loud minority on GAF that says the same bullshit over and over about games they haven't played, meanwhile, check out the for honor or WD2 OTs. There's nothing blind my posts, unlike you i'm actually elaborating instead of making stupid assumptions and living literally half a decade in the past. You're being intellectually dishonest, and are blatantly misinformed because you haven't even played the games you're talking about yet i'm supposed to be the issue? Thanks for proving the point of the OP.
What the fuck is this?[Back to the Ubicopter, CrossingEden.
More_Badass
Member
I think we've dissected in detail why people both like and dislike these games. Conversation seems to have run its course
- Status