Ubisoft really turning it up with the garbage games

[Rygu]

They've been putting out garbage for as long as EA has, and that's not easy to do.

 

[GtehMVP]

I'd be a lot more okay with Legion if it didn't crash constantly and from what I hear Valhalla crashes a lot too.

I'm about 6 hours into Valhalla and it hasn't crashed once

There are definitely bugs/glitches though, even with the 1.02 update that was released this morning. This game needed a few more months of polish, especially the prologue. The story in that is poorly executed, but once you get to England, it picks up. You really feel like Vikings starting over in a new land.

This feels very Ubi, if not slightly better. I'm enjoying it so far, but I can already feel that it's going to fall very short of greatness.

Every Ubi game as of late is missing soul. I haven't played Watchdogs 3, but I never planned on it. I can't believe anyone's shocked that their decentralized approach to playable characters gets repetitive and is hollow once you see all that's offered.

 

[KaNesDeath]

Siege is fucking FIVE YEARS OLD and still going strong to the point it has it's own like, department on the e-sports circuit and is used as a game to help raise money for fundraisers and shit.

Siege has done a great job of carving out their own community within the FPS genre. But dont kid yourself on it being a profitable esport. They are one to two years away from folding and or drastically downsizing to like Dreamhack only lan events.

 

[Wreckless]

Far Cry 5 and Far Cry New Dawn are a couple of the best games I played on this generation of Xbox. The South Park games were good too.

The Far Cry games are pretty much the only Ubisoft games that I buy. But i'm slowly starting to lose interest in them as they have fallen in the same category as the Assassin's Creed games.

Same game mechanics, same type of objectives and recipe but with a different story.

I first became a fan of Far Cry when Far Cry Instincts dropped on Xbox back in 2005. It really was something that hadn't been done before. Then I went back and played the very first game. I really liked all the games. They usually brought something new everytime up until far Far Cry 3.

After Far Cry 3 it just feels the same.

I miss when developpers took risks and tried new things. Ubisoft just sticks with the same formula over and over again. Bringing us a reskinned version of the same game. They aren't the only ones though. Other big developpers are also guilty of that.

 

[Wreckless]

Nah Rockstar's water is better

Rockstar is probably the best developper. Everything they do is pretty much a garanteed success.

They have brought something new with each GTA game. The Red Dead games are simply amazing. Max Payne series. And even their random games such as Bully, The Warriors etc..

The thing with them is that they don't release a new game every year and I think that's what makes them so good.

Ubisoft should take a few years off and bring people something new.

 

[KaNesDeath]

Rockstar is probably the best developper. Everything they do is pretty much a garanteed success.

Know im likely in the minority here. Ive always found Rockstar games to be shit. Following the same exact formula since they went 3D in 2001.

 

[Fzubek]

I don't know, I'm pretty excited to LARP as a gender queer non binary black Viking when I get home today

 

[jefferz]

Siege has done a great job of carving out their own community within the FPS genre. But dont kid yourself on it being a profitable esport. They are one to two years away from folding and or drastically downsizing to like Dreamhack only lan events.

Their viewer numbers are continually growing.

 

[Gregolian]

Their viewer numbers are continually growing.

Their player count has remained steady is the bigger thing I think. Hell, for a couple years there it grew with every expansion.

 

[Wreckless]

Know im likely in the minority here. Ive always found Rockstar games to be shit. Following the same exact formula since they went 3D in 2001.

And what is that forumla?

The games that I listed are vastly different from one another. Well maybe you could argue that Red Dead Redemption is a western version of GTA which I don't think it is, but I don't see how the other games ressemble each other.

 

[jefferz]

Siege is fucking FIVE YEARS OLD and still going strong to the point it has it's own like, department on the e-sports circuit and is used as a game to help raise money for fundraisers and shit.


Yes, their open world stuff gets really repetitive but the story of Odyssey, though convoluted, and Origins showing how the Assassins started (even if it went against already established lore) was fun. The newest one Valhalla set in a time period tons of people love and other than these shows:



We don't get a ton of in media, has a lot of people excited. Add in the game though like Odyssey and Origins before it will take a fictionalized version of history... we as the player will get to interact with Ivar, Bjorn, and Ubbe at various points in the story and also fight battles against King Alfred, aka.. THE FUCKER THAT UNITED ENGLAND.

They don't make perfect games by any means. Lots of their stuff ends up formulaic yes. But if it's a formula that for the most part you enjoy (like I do) and you love the settings, it's fucking worth it.

Also, the Ubisoft library has one of the BEST endings to a game ever:

Bnans doesn't play Seige anymore, she got tired of the stream snipers. Same with AnneMuntion.
Zironic had Mike Rodriguez, recently fought Ed Herman, doing a charity stream for Stack Up the other day. They raised over $9k.

 

[Woldog]

Know im likely in the minority here. Ive always found Rockstar games to be shit. Following the same exact formula since they went 3D in 2001.

But like isn't that every single game company?

Bethesda, Bioware, CDPR, Rockstar. They all do the same shit as their previous games, unless it's a new IP.

 

[KaNesDeath]

But like isn't that every single game company?

For a subsidiary studio thats to be expected. Not for an entire game company.

 

[Woldog]

For a subsidiary studio thats to be expected. Not for an entire game company.

Again, Isn't that like every game company. Name a single company that has ground breaking innovations every iteration of their franchise?

 

[KaNesDeath]

Again, Isn't that like every game company. Name a single company that has ground breaking innovations every iteration of their franchise?

Those are two different things. Example of what i mean, Respawn putting out three FPS titles then a Star Wars themed dark souls/uncharted game.

 

[Woldog]

Those are two different things. Example of what i mean, Respawn putting out three FPS titles then a Star Wars themed dark souls/uncharted game.

Okay so if we don't include singular franchises and go off your original quote, in your view

GTA, Manhunt, Max Payne, Midnight Club, Red Dead, LA Noire, Bully and Table Tennis are all the exact same formula by Rockstar?
I can definitely see how Table Tennis and Manhunt are identical.

 

[GtehMVP]

Rockstar is probably the best developper. Everything they do is pretty much a garanteed success.

They have brought something new with each GTA game. The Red Dead games are simply amazing. Max Payne series. And even their random games such as Bully, The Warriors etc..

The thing with them is that they don't release a new game every year and I think that's what makes them so good.

Ubisoft should take a few years off and bring people something new.

They make the best open worlds bar none imo, but even they have stagnated in areas, namely mission structure. For all the crazy and unpredictable shit that goes on in the world when you're driving/riding around, their missions force you into very linear paths. If you deviate from the path/style they want you to follow, mission over.

GTA 3 was more open-ended in that regard.

 

[HereticBD]

They make the best open worlds bar none imo, but even they have stagnated in areas, namely mission structure. For all the crazy and unpredictable shit that goes on in the world when you're driving/riding around, their missions force you into very linear paths. If you deviate from the path/style they want you to follow, mission over.

GTA 3 was more open-ended in that regard.

Perhaps, but I think that might've been by accident, and I don't know how well such an open ended structure would fare today, even though people claim they want it.

The thing with Rockstar, is that they always want to tell a story with big cinematic set pieces and always had a path you were supposed to follow, on top of it's sandbox open world. The tech just wasn't there at the time to keep you on those rails, so you could fuck around and break the mission structure. You can call the "GTA3" mission structure more open ended, but you could also call it broken and full of exploits. I don't know how well that structure would go with modern games. I think it would come off very sloppy.

 

[Drain Bamage]

They make the best open worlds bar none imo, but even they have stagnated in areas, namely mission structure.

I agree 100% and it's why I am struggling to get through RDR2. The open world is the best I've ever seen, and the wow factor is all I have to get me through this old school "video gamey" shoot 50 bad guys missions. They need to come up with a new paradigm. Why am I killing 50 bad guys? It should be like 5 or 6 at the most... make it more realistic. I hate having to do these immersion-breaking missions just to progress the world I want to explore.

I actually think Ubisoft is on to something with their Discovery Tour modes in their latest AC games. Graphics and open worlds are getting good enough that we no longer need these contrived "go here and kill 50 people" missions to make them fun. There should be a lot more like AAA quality open world games that are more based on exploration and physics. Indie games do this a lot but they are smaller budget and smaller in scope.

 

[method115]

I agree 100% and it's why I am struggling to get through RDR2. The open world is the best I've ever seen, and the wow factor is all I have to get me through this old school "video gamey" shoot 50 bad guys missions. They need to come up with a new paradigm. Why am I killing 50 bad guys? It should be like 5 or 6 at the most... make it more realistic. I hate having to do these immersion-breaking missions just to progress the world I want to explore.

I actually think Ubisoft is on to something with their Discovery Tour modes in their latest AC games. Graphics and open worlds are getting good enough that we no longer need these contrived "go here and kill 50 people" missions to make them fun. There should be a lot more like AAA quality open world games that are more based on exploration and physics. Indie games do this a lot but they are smaller budget and smaller in scope.

Yea maybe some companies should do that but I still enjoy the go and kill 50 guys. Especially if the combat is well done.