Quote:
Originally Posted by codynw
I really like what Ubisoft does for the most part. I think their ability to consistently put out good, but not great, games as often as they do is something that they should take a lot of pride in. The fact that, for one example, Assassin's Creed is going to have 3 games as big in scale as Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla within the span of 3 years, with all of them being at least above average quality (I'm assuming with Valhalla, but the track record is there). With how long it takes to make games, especially huge open worlds like Ubisoft tends to do, that's really impressive. There's not really ever a 10/10 coming from them, but that's fine. Their games are really good gap fillers while the consistent 9 or 10/10 studios have 5 years in between releases. I'll always have time for games like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry.
|
I was thinking the same thing the other day. I've never played a ''perfect'' Ubisoft 10/10 game like a say, Witcher 3 (IMO). But they consistently produce good 8-9/10 games that are good length and good quality. Nobody is ever going to say there is a perfect AC game. But it's more then likely going to be very good, and as a gamer that's good enough for me. I know when I play one of those games, it's more then likely going to be fun if I give it a chance and see it through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit
It's not a good formula though. It's classic design by committee. It's a mis match of formulas that were good years ago but then they cram them together where they don't fit.
Look at what they did to Ghost Recon. They took a solid tactical shooter and made it another open world tactical looter shooter with tiered loot gear and RPG elements and skill trees and exploration and loot boxes and customization. I'm actually amazed they didn't try to cram in a half cocked Battle Royale mode while they were at it. And doesn't do a single one of those things well.
Cant wait to be dissapointed by the new Splinter Cell. Or should we just cut to the chase and call it Splinter Assassin Far Division Cry Creed Cell.
Assassin's Creed they at least added RPG elements and stopped there. Hopefully they don't mess up Valhalla by adding too many half cocked ideas like they have with almost every other franchise
|
Well that ultimately comes down to what kind of games you enjoy. I personally enjoy the style that Far Cry and AC use. I like going up the tower to clear parts of the map to see what else you can do and get an overlay of the land. Gives me a purpose in the game and I get to explore almost all the game that way. I think Far Cry 5 was a step back overall, but Far Cry New Dawn was much better and made up for it.
And I'm fine with how they do the skill trees in their games. The games usually start out hard but find their groove once you upgrade your character enough. It just sounds like you don't like that style of game when it comes to exploration, skill trees and RPG elements all tied in together? It doesn't' work for every game company, but Ubisoft does it well so I'm trying to figure out what you hate so much about having something like a skill tree upgrade feature. And for an achievement hunter like myself, their lists often relate to how much exploration you do which is nice.
I haven't played much of tactical shooters they make in terms of Tom Clancy, Ghost Recon or Splinter Cell and I'm not a big multiplayer gamer so I can't really comment on those. I know it grinds people's gears when they see the option to buy loot boxes, but I've never paid money for a loot box upgrade so I don't feel pressured to buy one to experience the full game. If you don't like it, don't buy it? I've never been limited by one of their games because I didn't buy a lootbox, unlike EA games.
I've always viewed Ubisoft as a quality company that makes quality games. Their style might not be for everybody, but their games often have good ratings by multiple game sites as well, as their formula works for the most part.