Ubisoft says games have 'No Soul'

Aug 26, 2004
10,840
171
1,345
Huntusk
www3.telus.net
#52
Ubisoft best dev/pub working today.

Siege, Wildlands, For Honor: all masterpieces.

Division, Far Cry: cool af.

All soul top to bottom. Pure art.

People who hate them are communist hippies.
I mostly agree but I think Siege and Wildlands in particular (I don't know For Honor much) are wonderful games despite Ubi's AAA tendencies.

Wildlands, especially, is better the more you try remove or ignore the typical AAA open world b.s. from the game and just play it like an ARMA, Operation Flashpoint, or old school Delta Force.

And, it was great at release because it's great world design, despite that 'jank' at release a lot of people mentioned. GRW today is awesome, and the world design was great at release, but quite a few updates really did help smooth it out.

AFAIK, Siege and For Honor were not much different, in that the core ideas were awesome at release but they also benefited greatly from more updates to smooth out (or fill out with more content?) that original release state that many refer to as Ubi jank.

I hope if/when they make a GRW2 (gotta use that new TD2 engine more right?) they try move away a bit from the 'ding ?s and !s on the map' typical open world grind shit and embrace the sort of mil-sim lite 'no HUD,' no maps, etc awesome world design and gameplay loop that made GRW great and won people over with -- despite their misconceptions of the game at release.
 
Apr 15, 2018
1,504
1,705
230
#53
I mostly agree but I think Siege and Wildlands in particular (I don't know For Honor much) are wonderful games despite Ubi's AAA tendencies.

Wildlands, especially, is better the more you try remove or ignore the typical AAA open world b.s. from the game and just play it like an ARMA, Operation Flashpoint, or old school Delta Force.

And, it was great at release because it's great world design, despite that 'jank' at release a lot of people mentioned. GRW today is awesome, and the world design was great at release, but quite a few updates really did help smooth it out.

AFAIK, Siege and For Honor were not much different, in that the core ideas were awesome at release but they also benefited greatly from more updates to smooth out (or fill out with more content?) that original release state that many refer to as Ubi jank.

I hope if/when they make a GRW2 (gotta use that new TD2 engine more right?) they try move away a bit from the 'ding ?s and !s on the map' typical open world grind shit and embrace the sort of mil-sim lite 'no HUD,' no maps, etc awesome world design and gameplay loop that made GRW great and won people over with -- despite their misconceptions of the game at release.
What makes Siege, (and to a much much lesser extent For Honor) work is . that's pure gameplay. There is little fluff, not much a singleplayer, or a open world, or character choices. It's just the gameplay in the match, which is unique and exciting.

Siege feels out of place compared to the rest of Ubisoft library, which is like the epitome of "checklist game design"
 
Aug 26, 2004
10,840
171
1,345
Huntusk
www3.telus.net
#54
Even GR Wildlands is the same way, for those that really love the game. If Seige comes down to maps and the overall PvP gameplay, Wildlands is sort of the same in that it comes down to just the world map and the core scout-approach-execute gameplay loop. You strip away the subpar gunplay, the distracting and grinding missions and objectives, the waypoints and the mini-map, and you just take the core gameplay 'loop' and that beautiful world map, and it's such a great game to play like a mil-sim lite.

Best thing I ever did was turning off the HUD and basically learning to give zero shits about the map or objective progression. I load it, look at the world map and pick some objective that sounds or looks cool, and I turn every 1 single 'base raid' into a session where I hike it over on foot, scout the location, plan my approach, and execute said plan. And because the game, if nothing else, has really wonderful mil-sim nerd aesthetic variety (both in terms of target locations, geographic diversity, and character camos), almost every time you can craft a pretty cool little scenario to whatever mood you're in for the night.

I mention it before but the moment I stop playing it like Watch Dogs, AssCreed, or Witcher 3, and I started playing it like ARMA, Op. Flashpoint, or old school Delta Force 3, was what turned the game from 'meh' to 'I'm still playing it regularly a year later.'
 
Sep 11, 2018
147
96
170
#55
Wildlands stinks. Such awful repetitive/boring mission design/variety. But this is a very common thing in modern sp AAA games today. Especially open world ones. And don't give me no....but it's fun in co-op talk.

Mentioning that pile in the same sentence as Operation Flashpoint is heresy btw.
(you better be talking about the fake Flashpoint...Dragon Rising)

Only good Ghost Recon game was the original and expansions developed by Red Storm Entertainment....NOT UBI.
 
Aug 16, 2018
595
490
200
#60
lol nice projection, Ubisoft really is one of the worst offenders when it comes to uninspired, soulless metoo cash grabs
Why? Do you think that Fallout is bad?
Yeah beseth may be a trash pub but at least they delivered some memorable games this gen
 
Last edited:
Jul 9, 2018
860
1,182
260
#65
I don't know who is more stupid, the original ranting moron or the people who assumed he was accurate in his quote. Here's the entire interview, you dullards: https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/1...e-future-of-assassins-creed-and-splinter-cell

"You know what is missing in this industry? A soul. Video games are about gaming, and gaming is not about entertainment, it's about learning. When you learn, you have fun. But when we are just entertainment we are losing something. I question the team about what real benefits the player will take away from the game for their real life. Right now, we don’t do enough in this area. This is what excites me, how to make something that lets you have the most fun while also having something beneficial for your life."
Which is the dumbest thing a human being could possibly say. Games have always had a soul. By "learning" he means "ideological indoctrination".
 
Jul 9, 2018
860
1,182
260
#67
Ubisoft can buy FROM Software and their video games will have Souls at least
And then they would fill them up with microtransactions and gay undead. Ornstein and Smough would be a gay couple, and they would tell you that before fighting because of virtue signaling, and you'd be able purchase "time savers" such as exp boost and titanite from the store.
 
Likes: SonGoku
Jan 26, 2018
514
586
260
South Africa
#68
Modern games aren't created by game developers anymore. They are created by shareholders. That's why games have no soul anymore. But I feel like Ubisoft saying games have no soul is like the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Apr 15, 2018
1,504
1,705
230
#71
I don't know who is more stupid, the original ranting moron or the people who assumed he was accurate in his quote. Here's the entire interview, you dullards: https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/1...e-future-of-assassins-creed-and-splinter-cell

"You know what is missing in this industry? A soul. Video games are about gaming, and gaming is not about entertainment, it's about learning. When you learn, you have fun. But when we are just entertainment we are losing something. I question the team about what real benefits the player will take away from the game for their real life. Right now, we don’t do enough in this area. This is what excites me, how to make something that lets you have the most fun while also having something beneficial for your life."
I'm sorry, do you think this sounds impressive? :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Some of the best games I've ever played didn't impart me with "real benefits". They did however, entertain me greatly. Let's focus more on doing that.

Also, I have to agree with what another poster said. That does sound a bit like "Hey, let's cram our ideology down your throat, and 'teach' you something."
 
May 2, 2017
708
192
205
#73
Ah Razorfist, bringing down the hammer in his always alluring alliterative assonant attitude. Godspeed you glorious wrangler of words.

The notion that education should always be 'fun' is a misguided illness of our modern society that is heavily orientated towards enjoyment. Nobody who takes his education seriously is concerned with the fun aspect of learning. Generating knowledge is a long and oftentimes tedious process that is often shunned by those who'd rather remain in their blissful ignorance. Adapting your own convictions and views in order to accommodate new information is a very difficult process, otherwise we wouldn't have millions of people living in their own intellectual bubbles struggling to adopt the truth.

When it finally dawned on Einstein that he had lost the argument against Bohr and Heisenberg he was thrown into a long period of depression and intellectual recession. Such is the sacrifice of education. Sure, sometimes learning can be fun too, but in most cases it is not and it is certainly no necessary condition for learning. Hascoet is either a fool for suggesting otherwise or simply delusional for thinking that the little nuggets of cursory knowledge that his games convey represent the core business of education.
This youtubber reminds me of vintage Dennis Miller.

I really like the bolded in your post.

There has been a huge shift in education away from things that are uncomfortable. Here, there are no grades until high school; memorization is out, practicing things like writing is out, spelling is almost out, streaming students is out, etc. And, throughout the US, there has been massive grade inflation in college and uni ('A' is the most common grade today, at approx 45%). The least amount of inflation is in engineering, unsurprisingly.

Maybe a cooperative, collaboration based educational system is a net good thing, maybe not, idk. i do know that uni was the most intense competitive environment I've ever been in, and it was a shock. And when you have limited slots in programs, competition is really the only way...well aside from nepotism and money.

Swinging back to gaming, getting good at skill or knowledge based games requires practice and learning (i.e. work) and there is the possibility that you might fail because you are not good enough. I think that is why we see no single player AAA games without rpg mechanics and other systems like hidden dynamic difficulty. They want everyone to succeed because they make entertainment software, not games in the old sense. These games really have no stakes or emotional highs and lows, to me anyway.

The only space where designers get to include failure, competition, and skill is in the multiplayer space. And maybe that is part of the reason why the biggest games in the world with the most passionate players are multiplayer.[
 
Last edited:
Jul 24, 2018
1,037
686
195
#74
Why? Do you think that Fallout is bad?
I can't think of a single Bethesda game that had rock solid gameplay. The melee combat in Skyrim was super weak, and FPS combat in later Fallout games felt similarly weak. I don't think they've proven themselves as capable of rock solid gameplay. It always seems like a hump you have to get over or ignore with their games.
 
Oct 5, 2016
548
215
245
#76
When Ubisoft wanted to they could turn out an emotional gem every once in a while. Valiant Hearts was one of the most emotional games they've ever released and shows that if they really wanted to, they could put out some special stuff.
I was also going to reference Valiant Hearts (and Child of Light).

I’m a big fan of the UbiArt Framework and wish either Ubi or someone else would create something with it again. Even though the Rayman games generally aren’t my thing, I find them beautiful to look at.

As a side note, I recently got the Plat for Ghost Recon Wildlands. The only Ghost game I’ve played but it was immense fun, even with all those collectibles! Visually breathtaking at times too. I’m sure there were quite a few artists who put alot of love into that game.

I’ll also give Ubi extra brownie points if they bring the HD versions of the excellent Grandia I & II over to PS4 and not just the Ninty Switch/PC.
 
Last edited:
Oct 5, 2018
310
145
215
Spain
#77
I can't think of a single Bethesda game that had rock solid gameplay. The melee combat in Skyrim was super weak, and FPS combat in later Fallout games felt similarly weak. I don't think they've proven themselves as capable of rock solid gameplay. It always seems like a hump you have to get over or ignore with their games.
Ok, yeah. I understand your point. Anyway Fallout 3 and Skyrim are so great. I don´t know if you played, I assume yes. In this case, how many hours did you spent playing each game?
 
Jun 27, 2013
1,635
150
385
Winston Salem, NC
#80
Ubisoft "Let's try to tell a historically accurate fictional story that takes place in ancient Egypt, full of emotional character development and amazing detail."
Also Ubisoft "Let's put in DLC for a flaming horse, Unicorn, and a FFXV crossover cameo."
 
Jul 9, 2018
860
1,182
260
#83
Isn't this just your own pessimistic outlook tinting your glasses and world view?
What do you think "learning" means when used by a political activist? And why is he saying that it didn't exist before? Did you ever learn anything before, like game mechanics, puzzles or enemy patterns and strategies? So games were "without learning" and now he wants to make them "with learning", how?

Games are systems and learning how to play them is like finding a solution for a problem. Games have always had learning and a soul. Saying they need "learning" now can only mean something other than gameplay.
 
Jul 26, 2018
173
156
195
#84
What do you think "learning" means when used by a political activist? And why is he saying that it didn't exist before? Did you ever learn anything before, like game mechanics, puzzles or enemy patterns and strategies? So games were "without learning" and now he wants to make them "with learning", how?

Games are systems and learning how to play them is like finding a solution for a problem. Games have always had learning and a soul. Saying they need "learning" now can only mean something other than gameplay.
First of all, he is not a political activist. And they are not collecting some political coins. Ubisoft is an international company that cares about revenue and growing their userbase. That includes being transparent, inclusive and getting as many people onto your product as possible. Ubisoft doesn't care about any progressive agenda. They care about profits. They make whatever people want to see, and the success of their products speak to that. If you have worked for a large company before, you understand

Secondly, I don't see how he is talking like games haven't had learning before? He is so vague and broad about it, that he basically just says he doesn't want his game to just be entertainment. Something which is echoed by the Assassins Creeds teams in their stride for historical elements in their fantasy game. That makes perfect sense.
 
Feb 25, 2010
8,820
225
655
#87
Well , when your major franchises have the same gameplay and feel the same you easily can say they have not "soul". "Its an UBI game" its a term constructed since PS3/360 because games like:

Far Cry.
The Division.
Watch Dogs.
A. Creed.

all play the same...

With ACOdyssey they want to try somehting different and its welcome but at the same time its a basic RPG very far away from franchises like Dark Souls or even Final Fantasy.

They have other games like Child of Light , Mario and Bunnies, Vagrant but all those games are under the carpet since not are AAA games. Hope they do something differen with Beyond 2 because if it ends like an another "UBI game" would be a shame.
 
Sep 11, 2018
147
96
170
#88
What about Fallout New Vegas?
New Vegas was really good. (despite the crappy engine)

But NV is not a Bethesda game, Obsidian had some people like Chris Avellone and John Gonzalez which actually 'get' Fallout, unlike Bethesda.

Fo1, 2 & NV are very non-linear games. Sure there are some goals, and hand placed locations, but the way you fit into that story is entirelly up to you, so is the fate of entire communities and your relationship with them. Which is the total opposite of Bethesda's games in which your own agency is constantly denied by the gameworld which always return to status quo, and the characters still proceed with their linear quest-lines, no matter your previous actions. You are stuck in what you were supposed to do and fail to create new meaningful stories through your actions.

Toddler & co. demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the tone and atmosphere of the classics, the Brotherhood of Steel, the Super Mutants...not to mention Bethesda's absolute shit-tier writing and complete inability to deliver black humor, which the series is known for and really gave it some of it's awesome identity.
 
Last edited:
May 27, 2018
125
93
175
#89
Ubisoft is the first culprit of the mass production of soulles videogames and they caused me open world fatigue, a fatigue that only Insomniac's Spider-Man cured me of.

It's their fault if sone of my favourite IPs are long dead or forgotten, like Splinter Cell, Beyond Good & Evil and Prince of Persia.

Their games are copy-pasted, are full of money grab DLCs and unneded/unnecessary multiplayer modes shoved in single player games.

Plus they totally destroyed, exploited and changed how they see fit the Tom Clancy licenses: Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon are parodies of themselves now.
I want more Raven Shield and less Siege.

The earlier Assassin's Creed games were copy-pasted, yearly released incomplete pieces of shit with bad controls. The latter games improved, though.

Ubisoft is in no position to complain about soulles games, because all of their current releases are soulless as well.
 
Last edited:
Jan 20, 2012
13,002
76
535
Wales
www.twitch.tv
#91
My first thought was this is an executive and their first priority will be financial, but no, this is the chief creative officer. I do not agree that a product in any genre needs to be a tool for learning or that something needs to be taken away from it beyond entertainment. It is cool when that happens, but it is not a priority. If I want to learn as a person I don't look to video games to do that.

They have games that easily qualify, but then most have sequels that do not at all. It tells me that their original games are made with love, but what follows is often just part of a cycle of asset reusage for profit. Businesses will of course operate in this way, but being blatant about it and making statements that invite that scrutiny is a always bad. Awful in this case because of who said it.
 
Oct 26, 2017
169
70
180
Austin, Texas
#92
I'm sorry, do you think this sounds impressive? :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Some of the best games I've ever played didn't impart me with "real benefits". They did however, entertain me greatly. Let's focus more on doing that.

Also, I have to agree with what another poster said. That does sound a bit like "Hey, let's cram our ideology down your throat, and 'teach' you something."
Oh, I'm sorry, in your world game planning is mandatory? You're ASSIGNED to play Assassin's Creed? Fascinating. How difficult it must be for you to not be able to choose which games you do or do not play.
 
Apr 15, 2018
1,504
1,705
230
#93
Oh, I'm sorry, in your world game planning is mandatory? You're ASSIGNED to play Assassin's Creed? Fascinating. How difficult it must be for you to not be able to choose which games you do or do not play.
What the hell are you talking about?

Obviously it's my choice what I play, and I choose to play games that are more interested in being entertaining, and bot wasting my time
 
Apr 27, 2018
280
141
190
#95
Well, they're not wrong, but it's really not the developers' fault, it's nostalgia goggles. They can't recreate our favorite childhood games because of it, but games are still amazing in their own right.

I don't think Ubisoft deserves so much hate, though. Who else is a better mainstream third party publisher other than Bethesda and Ubisoft?
 
Sep 11, 2018
147
96
170
#96
Nostalgia is always used as the default 'I'm out of valid arguments' rebuttal by people who don't understand what made a genre/game popular or loved by the people discussing it in the first place.

Take rpgs for example....the fact is that many RPG fans have been disillusioned by how modern/AAA RPG's have placed an ever-increasing emphasis on action to increase marketability, reduced dialogue choices because of constraints of voice-acting, stripped away depth, challenge and complexity because it doesn't "appeal to a mainstream audience".
 
Likes: Fuz